New Book in Progress - Excerpt #3

And He Walks with Me: Jesus 2.1 – Interactive Edition

New Thoughts about Jesus & the Christ for the 21st Century
by Thomas W. Shepherd

[#3 - Continuing the excerpts...]

.

TEDDY BEARS AND STARSHIPS

Even for a relatively new species, human beings seem to have elected that subject as their major in the divine university of the cosmos. People love to love and be loved. Human love seems capable of projecting its warmth on all sorts of objects. People love teddy bears and national emblems and sweet melodies. A baby’s smile stirs us deeply; even the child of strangers touches the love chords in our mind-heart organ. Men and women are able to love irrationally, deeply, sometimes with a degree of steadfastness to surpass the loyalty of angels. It is not surprising that humanity would turn its love-light onto the collective personifications of human goodness—the gods and goddesses, divine power, however understood. The religious literature of humanity teems with declarations of devotion, loyalty and affection for the Divine. People need a divine teddy bear, an image to love and cling to and trust when the Cosmos goes mad, as it always does from time to time.

Jesus was a man, so he makes an even more convenient target for the cupid arrows of spiritual adoration, a manageable package of divinity, colored and shaped by the changing tides of world consciousness. Nuns call him husband; millions call him Lord. The biblical Jesus blesses everyone’s inner child; the believer eagerly climbs into his lap and feels secure in the divine embrace. Martyrs in the Roman arena loved him, as did medieval peasants, Renaissance artisans, free-thinkers of the Enlightenment, nineteenth century super-literates and revolutionaries, veterans of the world wars and moon-landing astronauts.

Someday, when starships sail the corridors of space at faster-than-light velocities, they will leave Earth orbit with Bibles in their prayer chapels. Doubtless there will be churches on the Moon and Mars and unknown worlds beyond Orion’s belt, along with an assortment of temples, mosques, and synagogues, too. Humans are irrevocably religious. It is not impossible that someday the great-great-great-whatever-grandchild of someone reading this book join an alien religion as soon as humans begin encountering them, and perhaps—turning Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill in a direction the Apostle never envisioned—become the first human-born priests or priestesses of a truly Unknown God.

Jesus 2.1 – Interactive: Post-modern Paradigm

Although Jesus Christ has been a thoroughly interactive figure throughout history, the post-modern age has finally produced a paradigm to explain this phenomenon: the computer program upgrade. Arriving after the initial software has been installed, an upgrade builds on the platform already laid down and modifies the program to improve basic functions or add new features which were unimaginable when the first edition hit the market. Later upgrades will continue the process. This is, of course, exactly what has happened to the “program” built on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

The premise of this book is that Jesus as experienced today is an interactive work in progress, co-created by people from the raw materials provided by scripture, tradition, life experiences, and your powers of intellectual reasoning and creative intuition. It is a solid, historical fact that humans have made and re-made the Nazarene in their image—physically and emotionally, politically and culturally—throughout the centuries since he walked the dusty streets of Roman Judea. Every generation has tweaked the Jesus model until it harmonized with the issues and requirements specific to the times.

At first glance, some might call this a cynical attitude. One could reasonably argue that the goal should not be to remake Jesus in our image but to discover his authentic message and conform ourselves accordingly. Of course, every church believes this is exactly what they have done, but the crazy-quilt landscape of Christendom shows otherwise. While sympathizing with people who are devoted to the search for a historical Jesus, many of whom are respected biblical scholars and theologians, nevertheless the inescapable conclusion from a study of Jesus as an interactive figure will show that embedded theological assumptions, which scholars inevitably bring to the Bible, will shape the results of their quest. Even if one were to allow that the Jesus Seminar has actually discovered some of the “authentic” sayings of Jesus through scholarly review of the gospel texts, all the mechanics of post-modern socialization come into play as soon as the question moves from “What did he say?” to “What does that mean for us today?”

Calling this study Jesus 2.1 / Interactive underscores the theological process which continues unabated into the 21st century. An interactive Jesus is not only unavoidable, the model also has great advantages. It allows humanity to project the highest and best attributes of its character on a recognizable figure and follow the leader in the direction which most people already know they should be traveling. Although Jesus has been portrayed as a lofty king with groveling subjects—a divine emperor who has no problem with subjugated servants or even slavery itself—today it is possible to say that Jesus loves humanity because he is humanity, the best example of what it means to be human and divine. In twenty-first century humans have learned, by and large, that subjugation and slavery are not acts blessed by godly sanction.

Light, Not the Lamp

Understanding Jesus as interactive allows creative flexibility, and the outcome is never certain. Although hindsight clearly marks a chosen highway as the obvious choice, looking ahead where the road divides presents a traveler with live options. Often, as in Robert Frost’s great poem, both paths have advantages and disadvantages, a circumstance which behavioral scientists call a double approach-avoidance conflict.

In making initial adjustments to the recorded memories of a living, historical Jesus, the developing Christian church faced such a double approach-avoidance conflict, because both positive (approach) and negative (avoidance) results followed once someone decided to cast Jesus either as human or divine. The proto-orthodox party—those who would one day hold the majority opinion—avoided the dual temptations declaring Jesus neither exclusively divine or exclusively human. Too limiting, they insisted, because Jesus was both human and divine. To this day traditional theology insists Jesus Christ must be fully human so that his divinity is accessible to mere mortals. However, this addition proposition—the uniqueness of Jesus’ divine-human nature—is not a mandatory component in Christology. There are other alternatives which are far kinder to humanity and historically far more tenable. Post-modern men and women have generally given up on God as the old man in the sky of Renaissance art. They know there is no cosmic Christ who, according to memorized creed, “sitteth at the right hand of God the Father.” Mystics through the ages have found something better, an inner Christ enthroned in every man and woman, and from this inner repository men and women have discovered that God brings forth anew the perfect idea of what it means to be human and divine in all times and seasons of life. It is this inner, divine spark which poets and prophets have recognized throughout history, although the tendency has persisted to confuse the lamp with the light.

When addressing epistemology or cosmology, in fact when looking at all the grand questions of life, the starting point for post-modern Christian thought can be clarified by this vital distinction between external lamp of Jesus and the inner light, which is the Christ-presence in every sentient being. While Jesus 2.1 definitely allows people to modify their understanding of Jesus, some would rightly argue for an interactive model which requires communication in both directions. Modern interpreters have an obligation to hear what the authors of the Second Testament were actually saying about the primordial Jesus of scripture. This process of clarification brings up an important point, namely, the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive theology. We have been doing both in this study so far, describing what exists and prescribing possible choices or alternative points of view.

DESCRIPTIVE / PRESCRIPTIVE THEOLOGY

Fairly early in life, most people learn that it can be dangerous to discuss religion with friends and family. Many people have set beliefs and will brook no challenges to the world as they see it. Yet, life is growth, and growth means change, which is one of the reasons that former Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has written that Christianity must either change or die. Effective religion is always a work in progress, responding to the times and circumstances of real people in a real world. In this need for flexibility and responsiveness, religion is not unlike the other taboo subject which popular wisdom warns us against discussing—politics.

Ballot-Boxed in Georgia

True confession: In a previous incarnation—well, at least a few years ago—I ran in a partisan political election. I was the 1992 Democratic nominee for the majority-Republican 114th District of the Georgia House of Representatives. The local Democrats were graciously willing to let a carpet-bagger Yankee like me fall in battle against an incumbent who would have otherwise retained his seat in an uncontested election. I think the contest at least provided some comic relief for my fellow Georgians. Fortunately for the Peach State, the voters of the district chose the other guy—but I learned so much! The process of representative government really comes alive once citizens take the time to get involved in the elections. I eventually became an appointed member of the Richmond County Board of Elections and was able to serve all the people as an overseer of the elective process.

From my brief sojourn into the land of partisan politics, I learned that in the political arena people with highfalutin ideals—often originating from sincere but conflicting values—learn how to live in the real world by compromise, re-interpretation, and coalition. In a utopian world, whenever a problem presented itself, everyone would agree and their voices rise in harmonious finale. But until later in the program, people won't be living in utopia. Even in the best possible scenarios, progressively self-perfecting people will struggle to achieve worthwhile goals while operating as a check-and-balance on each other's excesses.

The same human dynamics were in play when Christianity was born. Hellenistic paganism and the new Christian faith quickly merged because they were never apart; they sprang from the same milieu. Although a cursory glance at church history might suggest the Christianizing process flowed from a Jewish Jesus who exerted powerful influence on the pagan world, in reality the communication was multi-sided. When Christianity reached out from its Jewish homeland, the mingling of various schools of Jewish Christian thought with Hellenistic ideas was unavoidable, even desirable, as the two worlds cross-pollinated.

This is one of the points which Jihadists of today—whether Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or whatever—fail to recognize, i.e., the interactive nature of world cultures. As the human population becomes more aware of this cultural dynamic, the evolutionary penalty for religious worldviews which try to fight this movement toward higher consciousness might very well be extinction. Although theology is no longer called “the queen of the sciences,” theologians attempting to discuss a subject as deep and far-ranging as Christology can only command respect for the quality of their work by establishing ground rules and clarifying the methodology they will follow. Most theology contains these two basic elements, descriptive and prescriptive.

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Theology

A descriptive analysis tries to explain what a particular belief or practice means. This is best illustrated by biblical theology, where the task of scholarship is to determine what the author of a particular passage was probably saying to his ancient target audience. However, a descriptive analysis of the sacrament of baptism might also attempt to clarify the practices of initiation into the Christian community and the beliefs which this or that group has held about baptism. Depending on the theological background of the group being addressed, even basic terms may have to be described. In some traditions, calling baptism a sacrament (rather than an ordinance) requires an explanation, and if the goal is to illustrate rather than advocate, the process is descriptive.

Prescriptive reasoning attempts to push beyond clarification about the way things are and to articulate underlying causes, discover connections, and arrive at new possibilities. In its most radical form, prescriptive theology says, "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…” (MT 5:43-44, NRSV)

Descriptive and prescriptive theology can be objective or subjective, although describing what exists is ostensibly more impartial than prescribing new connections. Frequently these two methodologies are mixed haphazardly by artless commentators, so the reader bumps along over description and prescription without realizing the road has been cobbled together with incompatible materials. The reason for this amalgamation is clear. For theologians, both amateur and professional, it is exquisitely tempting to favor one’s point of view by discovering it embedded in the words of Jesus, St. Paul, Thomas Aquinas, or Gandhi. And the more deeply people hold a certain conviction, the more easily they can “discover” authoritative support for that idea elsewhere.

An honest respect for methodology requires a beginning point within a self-consciously objective, descriptive model of the sources—facilitated by studying the Bible, non-canonical scriptures, and other historical documents of the faith; reflecting on the beliefs and practices of Christian and other religious communities throughout the ages; and surveying other resources now available due to the explosion of knowledge in this computer-enhanced world society—then to advance prescriptively by offering new insights for students of theology today. Although this does not require a rigid formula— first descriptive, then prescriptive—it obliges religious thinkers to be aware of the perils of unsubstantiated speculation and to acknowledge when the line between explaining and advocating has been crossed, as it will be in almost any theological work, present volume included.

With so much already written about Jesus of Nazareth, one might wonder about the need for yet another book about his life, teachings and the meaning of his “work” for Christian theology. However, the orientation of this study is somewhat different from most other works on Christology written to date. Jesus 2.1 continues the pattern established in my volume on systematic theology, Glimpses of Truth. While attempting some degree of objectivity, especially when doing descriptive theology, this work does proceed from a point of view within the Metaphysical Christian circle of faith. Having said that, I will nevertheless attempt to apply some degree of intellectual rigor to the study of Christology and place the insights of New Thought Christianity in touch and in context with mainstream theology of the early twenty-first century.

Because the subject is Christology and not systematic theology, this work will assume readers have a basic grasp if New Thought Christianity or can infer enough from the context of these discussions to understand the issues. Those who are totally unfamiliar with the New Thought/Metaphysical Christian view of Reality might want to take a crash course by reading the works of writers like Eric Butterworth, Nona Brooks, H. Emilie Cady, Johnnie Colemon, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, Emmet Fox, James Dillet Freeman, James Gaither, Joel Goldsmith, Ernest Holmes, or Emma Curtis Hopkins, just to name a few.

With these first thoughts and observations in mind, we begin our journey into a deeper examination of Jesus and the Christ. This work is unevenly divided into four parts, all of which are grounded in the model of Jesus as an interactive work-in-progress. Part I, New Thoughts about an Old Story, provides an extended discussion of the issues and possibilities for additional new ways to look at Christology. Part II, Looking Back to See Forward, wades into the historic controversies, the hotly debated ideas about the nature and ministry of Jesus, from the early church, Apostles, and Paul through the Christological controversies of the late ancient period. Part III, Jesus Christ Today, investigates the many possibilities for practical Christology in the twenty-first century. Finally, Part IV presents a brief discussion of popular stories which New Testament authors attribute to Jesus, the Thirteen Favorite Parables.

We begin with a look at the guy under the halo, which I have subtitled, “Dream a little dream with me…”

_____________________________________________

New Book in Progress - Excerpt #2

And He Walks with Me: Jesus 2.1 – Interactive Edition
New Thoughts about Jesus & the Christ for the 21st Century

by Thomas W. Shepherd

[#2 - Continuing the excerpts...]

CONFESSING THE OBVIOUS

Shall we begin by confessing the obvious? Jesus was a human male, a fully credentialed member of the species homo sapiens. He was not born of the union between deity and virgin mother, because that’s not how the natural order, which drives the biology of human beings, operates. Stories of supernatural origin were common in antiquity and survive in popular culture today. From Achilles and Alexander to Spiderman’s accidental inheritance of superhuman powers from the bite of a mutant spider and Superman’s extraterrestrial birth among the semi-divine Kryptonians, people like their heroes extra-ordinary, licensed by the storyline to act extraordinary. Moved by life’s tragedies yet never daunted; stirred, but not shaken.

Even so, only Matthew and Luke know anything of the virgin birth (parthenogenesis in koine Greek), and a fresh reading of their nativity tales clearly show the paraphernalia of mythology. Mark and John fail to mention the birth of Jesus at all, nor does the earliest New Testament writer, Paul, who certainly would have invoked parthenogenesis among his Greek congregations if he had any inkling the story were true.

Apparently, young Jesus of Nazareth lived a rather ordinary life as a member of his community. Despite valiant attempts to create a backstory for the humble carpenter, there is no evidence Jesus ever studied with the Essenes, Egyptians, Druids, or Hindu sages. Right the contrary, he sounds very much like a first century rabbi, schooled in the prophetic tradition of Israel. He apparently lived at home in Nazareth where he learned and grew, and when he reached early middle age (thirty-something), he began to teach others his insights on the nature of God and the meaning of life. He healed some people—more accurately, the gospels seem to suggest he summoned healing from them, often remarking it was their faith which made them whole. He conveyed his major teaching through storytelling, which had a strongly ethical and universalist flavor. When addressing the religious leaders of his day, he employed the imagery of Jewish apocalyptic prophets to warn of dire consequences which result from a life without faith and compassion. Although he repeatedly counseled against violent responses to life’s problems, Jesus was a spiritual revolutionary. He was afraid of neither the Judean religious establishment nor the might of Imperial Rome.

Not surprisingly, he did not live long enough to retire.

Jesus visited the Jewish Temple during Passover week and criticized the economic and religious leadership in Jerusalem. The resulting tumult threatened public order. Roman authorities frankly could not have cared less what nonsense the Jews believed, but it had better not lead to trouble in the streets. Jesus’ activities disrupted the Roman peace—one can almost hear Pilate’s military advisers reporting, “This lunatic attacked the money changers and merchants in the Court of the Gentiles, by Jove!”--so the political leadership abruptly executed him as an insurrectionist. Jews get blamed for it, because the Christian community at the end of the first century was primarily non-Jewish and wanted to distinguish itself from the parent religion. By the time the New Testament was written, Rome had fought a major war to put down a Jewish revolt, destroyed the Temple, and had begun expelling Jews from the Imperial capital.

Certain enigmatic passages in the New Testament—where Jesus is said to have been persecuted by “the Jews” and a Jewish crowd shouts for Pilate to execute a Jewish holy man and to free a criminal--makes sense only in this above context, especially considering that both Jesus and all his followers seem to have been lifelong, faithful Jews. By the time the gospels were written, Christians were not just willing to give excuses for the Romans, many Christians were the Romans. Already in the first generation it had begun. Paul was a citizen of Rome who taught the Gentile world that they did not need to become full Jews to receive God’s Messiah—Greek word, Christos.

Nonetheless, it was the Romans who crucified him, not the Jews. After his execution, a significant number of people believed Jesus was still available to them in prayer, visions, and inner communion. They carried his faith to all parts of the Roman world and eventually around the globe. Those who came after, however, often placed more emphasis on the messenger than the message he brought.

Human Component
If Jesus was fully human, which is a fair assumption considering he was born and died a man, and if there is any credibility to the legends about his great gifts of wisdom and healing power, one might deduce that all people have the potential to achieve similar insights, work similar wonders. If only a few individuals achieved this high level of consciousness (i.e., holiness) so far, some mystics have observed it may be due to inherited, limited ways of thinking rather than inherent limitations. It is however much easier to think of Jesus as extraordinarily abnormal—even uniquely divine—because his special qualities would then provide an alibi for human limitations and justify human apathy in the face of a world filled with spiritual challenges.

In an extraordinary book which set bestseller records in the young adulthood of the baby-boom generation, Richard Bach narrates a revelatory discussion between a flock of feathered disciples and the resurrected Jonathan Livingston Seagull:

“The only true law is that which leads to freedom,” Jonathan said. “There is no other.”

“How do you expect us to fly as you fly?” came another voice (from the flock).

“Look at Fletcher! Lowell! Charles-Roland! Judy Lee! Are they also special and gifted and divine? The only difference, the very only one, is that they have begun to understand what they really are and have begun to practice it.”[1]

Love your enemies? Impossible! We’re not Jesus.

Just as the flock dismissed any hope of becoming equal to the Son of the Great Gull, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, humans can linger safely in a comfort zone of mediocrity if convinced that higher achievement is unattainable. The higher people place Jesus, the less responsibility humanity owns for failure to reach the level of spiritual development he called everyone to achieve. Playing to the spiritual paralysis of a feckless era, Christian fundamentalists tell the populace to trust Jesus and he’ll take care of everything. Except that capitulation hasn’t worked, because today more than ever people are realizing that life is a do-it-yourself job. Humanity has progressed only by learning to trust its gifts and to work with others for lasting solutions. This is the hard spiritual and intellectual homework required to change lives for the better, and people have often fled from responsibility for their own growth by looking to Jesus as an external savior who alone can make things right.

For two thousand years people have avoided accountability by awarding the most extraordinary attributes and showering prodigious affection on this simple Jewish teacher from Galilee. Daily, he is the object of an almost boundless adoration. Jesus is loved, emotionally and intellectually, in a manner which non-subscribers to the Christian religion must find rather peculiar. No other prophet or teacher has evoked this kind of personal rapture on the part of his devotees. The Muslim worships the God of Muhammad, not the Prophet himself, which would be scandalous to Islamic theology. Buddhists are more drawn to the teachings of the compassionate Buddha than to a personal relationship with Gautama Siddhartha. Christians, on the other hand, are a tribe of believers divided by doctrine yet united by devotion to Jesus Christ. As a member of an Eastern religion once remarked to me, not unkindly, “All you Christians agree about following Jesus. What you can’t seem to agree about is where he’s going.”

This persistent, personal attachment to Jesus is no less than astonishing, considering how distant the man of Nazareth stands from even those who came immediately after him. And it began with the first generation. Jesus spoke incessantly about God; Paul wrote incessantly about Jesus. No one can doubt the primitive church loved Jesus with a passion which required them to keep the faith even if it meant losing their lives. This is even more incredible when we realize that only a tiny handful of people ever heard Jesus speak in the flesh. They did not know the man of Nazareth, but they felt a deep relationship to a spiritual being whom they knew as their resurrected Lord. As the old hymn affirms:

You ask me how I know he lives?
He lives within my heart.[2]


Jesus of Nazareth
The historic Jesus was an ordinary man who led a brief, ordinary life, yet changed the world. Despite the widespread penchant for the traditional Christ of faith, it is abundantly clear the original Jesus of Nazareth is not the creature whom Christians have adored. That man is long gone, another obscure life celebrated in absentia with legend, myth and editorial invention. Rabbi Yeshua Ben Josef quickly evolved into Jesus Christ, a theological conglomeration of concepts and ideas gathered around the distant, fragmented memories of an historic person. In the Christian Scriptures we have documents written by his followers of the second generation which provide a glimpse into his life and teachings, but not without heavy editorial input and fill-in-the-blanks fictionalization of the story.

As time passed, Jesus of Nazareth became more god than man, the fate of martyred leaders from Caesar to Kennedy, especially figures in religious history. The Jesus of scripture is a first century literary character based on the memories of the primitive church, but the New Testament is no more a true representation of the martyred Rabbi Yeshua than a novel set in ancient Rome about the murder of Caesar would conjure the authentic Gaius Julius.

Although the process of ongoing interpretation is seldom acknowledged, the Jesus available today is still a work in progress. Readers interact with many biblical images of the Nazarene—approaching the procession of Jesuses from the far-flung pathways of the individual histories of each reader, enriched and tainted by subsequent theologies and ethnicities and politics. Through this interactive program, people co-create the best Jesus who suits their needs in every age. No other is resource is available. The living Jesus who walked the shores of Galilee has gone to the many mansions, either absorbed by the unfeeling Cosmos or ascended above this level to some higher degree of union with God. We are left with scents of a presence, whispering of love and power, preserved in stories and saying and myths. The true Nazarene is gone; all we have is the biblical Jesus and the “Christ of Faith”.

The biblical Jesus exists only in this marketplace/workshop of thought and faith as a dynamic, evolving concept of what it means to be human and divine. On him humanity projects its highest hopes and deepest values, which makes Jesus the Christ of faith far more important than the historical Jesus of Nazareth ever was. He is a portrait of the highest and best, the canvas on which each generation paints their masterpiece of human potential and divine love. Yet, this creative process energizes the ethereal Christ of Faith as he downloads into the contemporary world, like the risen Lord stepping down from a portrait, and when he emerges in contemporary life he comes with power to quicken men and women to follow him in newness of life.

Jesus Christ has been called, among many titles, the Way-Shower. As the distillation of the wisdom and spiritual confidence which has been interactively poured into and drawn from the Christ-concept over the centuries, the Jesus Christ of Faith has convinced people that the biblical Jesus knows where everyone is going, because he’s been there already. And because this truth is interactive, people invariably draw on their resources to find an appropriate model for the day in which they live.

Even given these limitations, the historical figure standing behind the biblical Jesus still reaches through the maze of stained glass windows and hands every generation a set of notes to consider as humans ponder life and faith in their culturally conditioned ways. The Sometimes, this primordial Jesus issues a challenge which rings through the ages. For example, his command to grow spiritually—ready or not—uttered in words which strike the ear like a hammer of futility: “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”[3]

What kind of practical Christianity could be built on that absurd injunction? Yet, there it is, undaunted by two thousand years on the shelves of church libraries. Perfect? How does one understand that injunction without becoming cynical, frustrated or angry? Is there a parallel verse to modify that one, maybe in Aramaic? How realistic was this Galilean prophet, anyway? In fact, could not the whole life of Jesus be summarized as an idealistic fantasy which failed ruinously?

“Commonwealth of Holy Typicality”
Looking at the historical events on their face value, Jesus represents a life that ended in weakness and humiliation. Paradoxically, one could argue this ignominious defeat constituted his greatest triumph. Nothing could make him abandon kindness and steadfast love, not even an unjust death sentence. He marked the path so well that no matter which fork in life people take, Jesus travels along. “Be perfect…” he says with no hint of hyperbole.

Following so many contradictory demands is a clearly impossible task. Nevertheless, there have always been culturally Christian people who hear his call and attempt to walk the supererogatory path he charted. For his followers, Jesus stills the storms of fear and emptiness, healing minds and hearts with love, and spreading peace that passes all understanding. When the Apostle Paul told the church at Corinth, “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself…”[4] it probably never occurred to Paul that the only way Jesus could have achieved that lofty goal was by inspiring individuals to a new vision of their potential.

Note it is God, not Jesus, who is the protagonist in Paul’s vision. God comes to Earth in “Christ”, who in Paul’s mythos is the exalted form of Jesus, the man of Nazareth, nevertheless one of us in all aspects of humanity. By his life, teachings, death and resurrection-experience Christ Jesus (Paul’s preferred term) demonstrates his divine-human nature and reconciles the world of human consciousness with its destiny in the commonwealth of holy typicality, where God-consciousness engulfs men and women as if they were fish in the divine ocean.

With its broad vision of cultural and historical evolution, post-modern Christianity now has the opportunity to see the Lordship of Jesus Christ flowing from the same Source which nourished Buddha, Lao Tzu, Moses, Confucius, Mahavira, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah, and countless lesser-known men and women, i.e., the “Christ” or divine spirit within all sentient beings. One might reasonably contend that all creatures in the Cosmos live, move and have their being through this animating God-within. More importantly, through this indwelling divinity humans know the power of love. Women and men are love-capable beings because they are children of God, made in the imago Dei, which is love itself.

________________________________

[1] Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull: A Story (NY: Scribner, 1970), 83. Parenthesis added.

[2] Alfred H. Ackley, (music and lyrics), Hymn: “He Lives!” available online at http://www.tagnet.org/digitalhymnal/en/dh251.html
[3] Matthew 5:48.
[4] Second Corinthians 5:19.

New Book in Progress - First Excerpt

And He Walks with Me: Jesus 2.1 – Interactive Edition

New Thoughts about Jesus & the Christ for the 21st Century

by Thomas W. Shepherd

What if God was one of us,
Just a slob like all of us,
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to find his way home...

Joan Osborne (1963- )

Introduction

New Hermeneutic
Christology is an indispensable ingredient for understanding the post-modern, high-tech culture in which we live. Whether looking at twenty-first century life in terms of spirituality or politics, ethics or economics, moral values or paradigms for emotional health, Jesus Christ is an essential element in the collective consciousness of Western civilization. Furthermore, because of the dominance of Europe and the Americas in political, cultural and economic spheres, some degree of Christological reflection is arguably important for humanity at large. Even those who have grown up in Christian lands only to reject Jesus utterly—often for good reasons—will usually reject Jesus based on the values inherited from Jesus.

Consequently, this book offers, under one cover, a somewhat rambling and occasionally repetitious collection of essays representing over seven year’s work in theological reflections, ruminations and stray thoughts on the most-written-about and least-agreed-upon figure in world history, Jesus of Nazareth. Because of this strangely un-informed familiarity, it will be necessary to herald the work by a few words of introduction about the most-discussed life ever lived. Hopefully, the discussion will quickly break from the familiar setting to some newer thoughts about the old story. There can be no doubt of the importance of this subject, yet clarity in looking at Jesus today is difficult to achieve, let alone objectivity. Too many people are too heavily invested in the authority of the man from Galilee. The unspoken energy behind that authority is a fervent desire for corroboration: “If only Jesus stands with me, His imprimatur validates my belief system, economic program, political agenda, moral values, and view of society at large. If Jesus stands on the other side of an issue—well, He simply can’t stand on the other side, because He is always right. And I am on the right side, therefore Jesus must be here, too.”

A full-blown hermeneutical system—a network of principles undergirding biblical interpretation—are in full force in the above, energized by a strong need to agree with Jesus, or better still the need to have Jesus agree with me. The 2-part formula looks like this:

I know what is right.
Jesus is always right.
Therefore, Jesus must agree with me.

Faithful obedience is the goal for the Christian.

The result of this presumptive fantasy of total concord with the New Testament is that I must reinterpret problem passages until they comply with the post-modern, ethical-theological model from which I function. Therefore, any instance where the particular Jesus figure (whether in Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, or Revelation) goes a direction which is less than admirable—i.e., cursing a fig tree not in season, or promising to send violent judgment rather than peace upon the Earth—I am compelled to rescue the text with creative interpretation to assuage my cognitive dissonance. The best I can hope for is blissful ignorance of this dynamic at work, because willfully deconstructing my views on the authority of Jesus Christ places me in an awkward position, especially if my theology views Jesus as perfect, infallible, and uniquely divine.

This book suggests another formula, a departure which hardly seems all that far-reaching and radical when the supernaturalist ingredient is removed. Instead of bricking Jesus into a temple of perfection, why not allow that both he and the New Testament authors may have had ideas which simply do not work for someone living today in the twenty-first century? In fact, why not step over the authority line and propose that Jesus of Nazareth, like any great teacher, has no authority except when he speaks truth which connects with the learner? In line with the above direction, I submit the following simplified hermeneutical system:

I have values which are important to me.
Jesus and I do not always agree.
The New Testament authors and I do not always agree.

Faith-filled understanding is the goal for the Christian.

When I dialogue with these sources, I learn and grow. However, it is not the authority of Jesus or the Bible which stimulates growth; people grow when the seeds planted in their consciousness take root, expand, and eventually bloom. The growth-power of Jesus Christ through the centuries marks him as an extraordinary source of spiritual nourishment. Yet, his very familiarity makes it a daunting task to approach the Nazarene from a new direction.

The “Christ of Faith”
If most Americans were shown a thirty-something Caucasian man wearing a white robe, shoulder-length hair and close-cropped beard, chances are the identity-center of their brains will automatically chirp: “I know that guy!” Chances are the answer won’t be, “That’s John Lennon…” The fair-skinned, robed image will immediately conjure up memories of stained glass portraits and full color prints of childhood, despite the fact that the Nazarene probably looked more like an Semitic Arab than a Norse Viking. And why is the instant recognition software installed in almost everybody’s brain? Because they know him.

Notwithstanding his long-ago lifetime and lofty location in literature and liturgy, Jesus is not some distant deity, enthroned in Olympian splendor for many people. Men and women today feel intimately acquainted with Jesus. People you and I have met and known personally insist that they have met and known Jesus, personally. People swear he has changed their lives, made them better human beings. Not only that, he continues to do so. He walks with them and talks with them—not in the distant past, but now, in the twenty-first century. Although no one alive today has stood face-to-face with the historic figure whose memory glows amidst the shadows of antiquity, a lot of people alive today really, really love Jesus in an intimate and personal way, like a loved one gone to war. Distant, yet present in living memory, preserved by re-read letters and daily conversations, like phone calls from beyond the edge of the world.

Looking past devotional lenses, the picture gets both clearer and more complicated. Some religious scholars argue that most Jesus concepts which have come down to us are actually based on a Christ of faith, a customized icon of Christian devotion, created and recreated in successive generations to meet the needs of the era.[1] And the scholars are at least technically correct; it is an undisputed historical fact that people have re-interpreted and re-shaped the image of Jesus depending on where and when they lived. The ascetic Jesus of the third century desert Saint is a wholly different spiritual being than the richly enthroned Jesus of Elizabethan Protestantism, and neither are recognizable in the revivalist Savior of the American frontier. Asian Christians tend to paint their Master with almond eyes; African Christians see him as black—which is probably an overstatement, but nevertheless stands closer to the Semitic original than the Scandinavian Jesus of European sacred art, mentioned above.

There is nothing particularly sinister about this; people reproduce themselves in their religious art because those are the available models. That which is normative is that which a person sees in normal, daily life. This innocuous act of creating the world in one’s image usually proceeds unexamined, especially when it is functions well. When applied to Jesus, the results of this process are predictable.

Jesus Christ: Work-in-Progress...
One might also say, not without controversy, that the man of Nazareth has been an imaginary spiritual playmate for millions—confidante, silent lover, best friend, surrogate father-brother-husband; trusted King when earthly governments fail, all-purpose superhero who will save the day before the final credits roll. A sympathetic skeptic might say, “No matter. Love is always irrational. So long as the people who worship him are happy in their ‘relationship’ with the Jesus they have created, what’s the difference?” And the objective observer would have to agree, to a point. Dream-state spirituality based on a manufactured Christ of Faith does not necessarily belie the reality of a connection to Jesus himself, because none but a cynic would deny that daily visits with the devotional Jesus have enriched countless lives.

This acknowledgement requires any post-modern investigator to begin Christological study with a frank appreciation for the Christ of faith, regardless of how culturally bound is his image may be. Billions of people—who have worshiped Jesus as Master, Savior, and Lord—have incontestably entered into a faith-relationship with something beyond the reach of rational inquiry, a spiritual resource which puts them in touch with God and grants them assurance of pardon, strength for daily living, and peace of mind.

That being said, it should be briskly apparent that this book of essays is not intended for the “Master-Savior-Lord” section of pews in the Church Universal. It is for the questioners in the crowd—people who admire and perhaps even feel great affection for Rabbi Yeshua Ben Josef but nevertheless want to climb beyond religious infatuation while holding firmly onto the steady rail of contemporary thought during the ascent. My suspicion is their numbers are legion. During thirty-plus years in ministry, I have frequently encountered post-modern “believers” who indicate they want the intimacy of personal belief but are not willing to surrender the head to gain the heart.

Yet, they know intuitively that there is something special about this man. His praise of the peacemakers, his love of truth, his blessing and approval of children, his acceptance of foreigners and outcasts in his stories, his willingness to speak to women as equals—these qualities sparkle within the scriptural picture of Jesus only because life experiences have allowed us to see these qualities today as virtuous. Jesus today represents forgiveness, inclusivity, and unconditional love. However, this sentimental description of Jesus as the God-man who loves and approves of everyone, the very incarnation of Beatle George Harrison’s Hindu gospel song “My Sweet Lord,” would be wholly unintelligible to large portions of the Christian world until the twentieth century.

In the past, Christians have invoked Jesus as a judge-executioner, god of war, avenging angel, and abusive father-figure meting out discipline which today would be called child abuse. In 312 C.E. the first Christian Emperor said that God had instructed him to emblazon symbols of the Christ on the shields of his legions. When Constantine the Great met his rival, Maxentius, at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine believed it was those symbols which bought him victory. This is not the Jesus of Martin Luther King, Jr., but a Lord of battle who strikes the foe in the Name of God. Later, Medieval armies would march under the cross as they pillaged their way across Europe to rescue the Holy Land from the heathen Muslims.

And it wasn’t always governments who acted violently in the Name of Jesus. European children were taught by strict “Christian” standards, like the parents of the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, who beat him for minor offenses until the blood flowed. Until relatively recently, beggars and debtors were tossed in prison, women had no rights, and even the mildest offenses were met with death by hanging. Childhood had no meaning until the abolition of child labor, and African slavery made a mockery of the Sermon on the Plain with its “Blessed are the poor…” Only after humans had lived through these tough times did they begin to discover in the words of Jesus a better way to better living, a model hidden in his miracle stories and rabbinic instructions, perhaps waiting for humanity to mature unto the point when people understood that to love one another and love your enemies were not contradictory mandates.

Yet, as a template for human character, Jesus of Nazareth certainly offers a full plate of healthy choices. He was a spiritual adventurer who forgave those who needed forgiveness, challenged those who needed a contradictory voice, and met people where they were. He grew, learned, loved, feared, conquered his fears, and remained faithful unto death. When it was all over, in the ebbing moments of his life, he prayed for forgiveness on behalf of the very people who had murdered him.

Would that all of us could go and do likewise.

Deep appreciation for the contributions of Jesus to human life—even love of Jesus, if you will—should not blind people to the facts about Jesus, or the lack thereof. Having made these preliminary remarks, which were designed to suggest the complexity and depth of the Jesus subject, let’s take a deep breath, step back from the haze, and begin with some first thoughts.

[1] Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus (NY: HarperSanFransisco, 1996), 42.

THAT’S A GOOD QUESTION…

The following is a Q&A which was cut from an upcoming issue of Unity Magazine due to editorial preferences. I'd written about the topic recently, and the topic is significantly controversial and political enough to make some people nervous. However, the topic is also important enough that I wanted to make these controversial and political observations available to folks who follow my heretical escapades through this medium. The following therefore represents my viewpoint and not that of Unity, UMag, or any organization. So, let's take off the gloves and talk about Iraq.

Rev. Thomas Shepherd
______________________________________

Dear Tom: I have to disagree with your opinion on the war in Iraq in the July/August 2007 issue of Unity Magazine. It is hardly a "quixotic adventure," nor is it "wholly different" from the battle for survival that was WW2. In fact, losing in Iraq would put us in even greater danger. There weren't any long-range missiles and suitcase nukes in 1942. It's nonsense to say Iraq is not a just war. In areas it controls, Al-Qaeda institutes an especially harsh form of Islam, but personally I don't think there's any other kind of Islam--there's just Muslims who choose not to follow all the tenets of Islam. Women in Al-Qaeda-controlled areas must cover up completely, men may not shave their beards, Western movies and music and clothing are forbidden, etc., with severe punishments (usually death) for those who stray from the rules. Abandoning the Iraqis to Al-Qaeda's tender mercies would be a terrible act of betrayal, far worse than our abandonment of the South Vietnamese, and with even more far-reaching consequences. No offense, Tom, but I have a hard time understanding how any intelligent and perceptive person can consider these facts and write Iraq off as a "quixotic adventure" and not a battle for survival.

G.L.D., Internet Question

Dear G.L.D..: Metaphysical Christianity is a faith which takes people to the heart of life’s great issues, but a lingering maxim of American life is, “Never discuss religion or politics.” If this is true for any of my readers, they are advised to skip the following response, because I intend to discuss both. Your thoughtful critique deserves a response of equal candor. As usual, I speak as one theologian and not as the whole Unity movement, which seldom agrees unanimously on anything, except that God is good all the time.

Assuming your assessment of the situation in Iraq is accurate—i.e., Al-Qaeda is doing terrible things to people and has plans for more suppression of freedom and greater violence—then I submit to you that my country has abetted those goals by offering militant Islamists a laboratory for violent activities and an enemy to attack in their own back yard. Whether we like it or not, many Arabs are mistrustful of American motives and see our presence in Iraq as a renewed form of Western colonization. Muslim terrorist organizations have exploited this fear, and their ranks have swelled since we invaded Iraq.

It’s easy to see how that happens; just look at the lessons of history. During the American Civil War, when invading Northern soldiers asked ordinary Confederate prisoners why they were fighting for slavery since they didn’t own any slaves themselves, the Rebels often remarked that they weren’t fighting for slavery at all. They were fighting the Yankees because, “You’re down here.” Certainly, the Civil War happened because America was a nation divided on the slavery issue. But each soldier’s reasons for participating in that great national upheaval was less global than particular. They saw themselves as fighting for their homes, their families, their way of life. And this pattern has repeated more recently.

I am a Vietnam veteran, proud of the soldiers who served there. However, I’m also aware that some villagers and townspeople joined the Viet Cong to fight against a corrupt central government and its American allies without necessarily being communists themselves. Their fathers had fought the Japanese invaders, then the French colonialists, now the Americans. A perceived invading army can spawn its own domestic enemies long after the presenting foe has been dispatched.

In Iraq we see the outpicturing of the law of mind action—thoughts held in mind produce after their own kind. More and more enemies appear, some identifying themselves with Al-Qaeda, and our leaders say, “You see! We told you this place is an outpost of Osama bin Laden!” An “intelligent and perceptive person” should be able to understand the difference between driving a bear from the smokehouse and going from cave-to-cave in bear country. It might turn a few cornered foxes and otherwise peaceable critters to bear-like behavior.

The Iraqis have serious problems within their national coalition, but our continued presence provides an excuse for them not to work together. Peace is the answer, but justice is the goal. Neither will be achieved as long as a military force which was intended to arrive as liberators continues its occupation against the sentiments of culture, religion, and common sense.

Unity has no official position on the matter—nor should we. But speaking as a citizen who happens to be a metaphysical theologian, I believe the time has come to turn the problem over to the Iraqis and expeditiously disengage from their civil war. The American departure from Iraq, far from being another Vietnam meltdown, will be in fact a terrible blow to the recruiting efforts of militant organizations, which are able to whip up hatred against foreign infidels.

And I take serious exception to your statement that only non-observant Muslims favor tolerance and peace. The indisputable fact is that Jihadis and fanatical groups like Al-Qaeda have hijacked and misrepresented Islam as a religion of war, which it is not

As Islamic teacher Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi has said, “No fair-minded person would allow himself to blame the religion of Islam for the wrong-doings of those who call themselves as Muslims.”[1] Islam in fact cautions Muslims against acts of aggression and allows violence only in self-defense and in defense of the faith. Do you see how we have bolstered Al-Qaeda’s anti-Western campaign by this long-term occupation of an Islamic land by essentially non-Muslim forces?

Regardless of someone’s views on the political situation in Iraq and the Middle East, Unity offers something positive that everyone can do. Let’s surround the whole situation with affirmative prayer for our leaders and soldiers, the Iraqis leaders and people, even the militants and their supporters. We are all children of the same God. The Qur’an puts it this way: “We have created you all male and female and have made you nations and tribes so that you would recognize each other.” [2]

All people can agree, I hope, that the world situation needs a massive surge of faith and prayer. Not prayer to vanquish enemies, but affirmative prayer to see the enemy-thoughts, which humanity has harbored too long, transformed into the realization that we are all One in God...the Merciful, the Compassionate.

[1] http://www.al-islam.org/begin/intro/rizvi.html (Accessed 08-01-07.)
[2] http://www.al-islam.org/lessons/3.htm (Accessed 08-01-07.)

It's ALL Greek To Me

New Thought Christians have paid a lot more attention to the Bible in recent years. I'd like to believe it was because we have been doing a better job at educating our folks about the positive value of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, or because our people are reading the works of progressive authors, like the scholars of the Jesus Seminar--people like Bishop John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Fr. John Dominic Crossan, and the late Robert Funk. But this renewed emphasis in biblical studies is probably more related to flights of fancy, like The DaVinci Code and assorted quasi-biblical archaeologically findings like the James Ossiaries. Regardless of how non-historical and poorly researched these works may be, they have nonetheless stirred popular interest in the biblical era again, just as the pop-religion, mini-hit book and movie The Secret has done for metaphysical thought in general.

One source of biblical enlightenment which has drawn wide attention in the small New Thought community has been the work of George Lamsa (1892-1975), a Turkish-born scholar who grew up speaking one of the many sub-languages which have descended from ancient roots in Aramaic. This modern version is part of a family of small languages and dialects, often tied to a religious community, which is growing smaller as tribal and villages versions give way to regional tongues such as Turkish, Arabic or Kurdish. Biblical Aramaic is a Semitic tongue related to Hebrew and Arabic, much like modern English has a common ancestry in German, with help from Latin, French and other European languages.

Jesus probably read Hebrew, spoke Aramaic, and perhaps knew some Greek or Latin. His boyhood home in Nazareth was only a short walk from the Greek-speaking town of Sepphoris, a trading and commercial center where Jesus and his father most surely marketed their carpentry trade. However, it requires a massive leap of faith for Lamsa to proclaim that the Aramaic he learned as a boy is the same language as Jesus spoke. Modern Aramaic is to the spoken language of Jesus as Spanish Salsa lyrics are to the Latin of Julius Caesar. Lamsa, however, insisted he grew up speaking biblical Aramaic, which he believed was the original language of both Old and New Testaments. This point of view is shared by virtually no scholar in the world, with the sole exception being Lamsa's direct disciples like Rocco Errico.

George Lamsa actually argued that the original OT text has been lost and the current Hebrew Bible is a re-translation back into Hebrew from the Aramaic. There is absolutely no evidence for this, a fact that Lamsa seems to have acknowledged when he claimed special insight rather than scholarly evidence as the basis for this conjecture. There are enormous problems with claiming the First Testament comes to us through the Aramaic, not the least of which is the fact that Judaism still retains its Hebrew Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls seem to establish that biblical Hebrew, not Aramaic, was the original language of Jewish scriptures. Before the time of Jesus, Scribes had produced Aramaic and Greek translations of the Bible--known as the Targums and the Septuagint, respectively--for study and prayer use, but the ceremonial and liturgical scrolls used in the Synagogues of Israel remained in their original Hebrew.

In Second Testament studies, Lamsa and Errico claim that the text known as the Peshitta, written in an Aramaic sub-language called Syriac, is an authentic, preserved version of an original Aramaic New Testament. If this is a faith position, something akin to claiming the King James Bible is a divinely inspired translation, then no critical scholarly comment is possible other than a raised eyebrow. However, the NT Aramaic school opens itself to scholarly inquiry by asserting their position is verifiable by historical and textual evidence. And when applying the tools of critical analysis to their claims, the Aramaic NT fails several key tests.

1) The Peshitta is not old enough. The Aramaic of the Peshitta is much later than the NT-era Aramaic which Jesus would have spoken. Linguists can tell the difference in the progressive changes within a language, much like a reader today could readily distinguish between the writing styles of British authors Charles Dickens and J.K.Rowling. Also, the Peshitta shows evidence of influence from Greek Byzantine texts which came centuries after NT times.

2) Aramaic letters of Paul make no sense. Why would Paul, a Greek-speaking Jew, write to a Greco-Roman audience in Europe with the language of orthodox Judaism in Palestine? It would be like a Japanese scholar, who was educated at Harvard, writing letters to the New York Times in his native Japanese. Certainly, the Times could find someone to read Japanese, but why would an English-speaking Japanese author do that in the first place? Paul's purpose in life was to reach the Gentiles, and they did not speak Aramaic.

3) Certain gospel passages clearly indicate they were not written in Aramaic. For example, Mark contains this text:

At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34, NRSV)

Mark also reports the same statement-translation format when Jesus raised a child from the sleep of death:

He took her by the hand and said to her, "Talitha cum," which means, "Little girl, get up!" (Mk 5:41)

Scholars have rightly observed that translations of Aramaic passages in the text make no sense whatsoever if the text were written originally in Aramaic.

4) Lamsa's methodology is unprofessional. He is roundly criticized for making sweeping assertions with no foundations and for stretching the meaning of the text beyond the breaking point. The first step in biblical interpretation is to attempt to discover what the author was probably trying to say to his target audience, not to take favorable interpretations and insist the author really meant this or really meant that.

This is a crucial point for any interpretative system which looks to symbolic meanings: There are certainly passages which scream for allegorical/symbolic interpretations, the whole book of Revelation for example. However, it is an entirely different process when people try to discover a) what symbolic meaning the author may have had and b) what symbolism can be seen in that passage today. It is important to remember that the interpreter is probably not discovering some hidden, secret meaning in the text as much as co-creating new meanings with the long-dead author of the passage. Art, literature, music, drama--all these are interactive media. The creative process is not complete until the person at the receiving end makes the final adaptations.

Metaphysical interpretation is a process whereby we allow all persons, places, objects, and events to represent different phases or aspects of the growth of the individual soul. It is allegorical interpretation seen through spiritual growth lenses. And there are other lenses. Peace, justice, love, relationships, self-esteem, selfless service, and intellectual growth are other possible lenses through which we might view the words of a particular passage.

The fact that Lamsa's interpretations are favorable to much of New Thought Christianity should not compel us to overlook the problems with his scholarship. Unity, Religious Science, the UFBL and other New Thought churches have an uphill struggle to establish themselves as legitimate expressions of Christianity in the twenty-first century. Certainly, Lamsa's insights into Semitic idiom can be helpful, but to emphasize an Aramaic Bible in the face of overwhelming scholarly evidence to the contrary is to marginalize ourselves further and confirm the negative stereotype of New Thought as a vacuous assortment of religious dabblers who have no clue about the origins of the Judeo-Christian faith. We are better than that.

Grace Consciousness

Sometimes, We Don't Need Jesus

There was a good crowd that day. The young clarinetist, wisp of a girl not yet in her teens, rose at the appointed point in the prayer service and left her father and strode to the front of the Fillmore chapel. In this historic, pillar-punctuated sanctuary, where Charles and Myrtle had preached and taught an earlier generation of heroes who launched the Unity movement, this little hero summoned the courage to raise her black wind instrument and blow the soothing, familiar first notes of "Amazing Grace..." With the warm sun slanting in from the fountained courtyard, I slouched in the seat and closed my eyes. Soon I was drifting, carried away by the lilting melody.
.
Then the music stopped sharply. I opened my eyes and saw the girl trembling. She had stumbled in the music--missed a note, or lost her place. I never noticed during the serenade. But she did, and it was too much to bear. She flew to her father's arms. I could hear soft sobbing above the murmuring tones of an approving, patient parent.
.
And then it happened. The congregation spontaneously took up the melody, a cappella.
.
"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a soul like me..."
.
All of us began almost at the same instant. It was as though God, or Myrtle Fillmore, had raised a baton and said, "All right now, together..."
.
The song ended amid smiles and not a few tears all around. Soon the program would continue. She never got up and finished her solo. No one expected her to do that. But after the prayer service, people came up to her and said kind words. Yet, no gesture could have been as simple and as powerful as that moment of spontaneous "grace consciousness" when a room full of strangers became the patient, loving family of a girl who will remember their embracing song for the rest of her life.
.
Sometimes, we don't need Jesus. We just need to act like him.

On the Consequences of Inaction--Iraq War and the Parable of the Talents

The Gospel According to Dolly

Country-western singer Dolly Parton--who is a gifted songwriter, poetess and a surprisingly astute observer of human nature--is reported to have said: “We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.”

I am a firm dis-believer in any power of evil, although people certainly do "evil" deeds. But is there some motivating force behind the tendency to act in hurtful and hateful ways? Some identify an “evil” force in opposition to the power of God, Satan or some other convenient scapegoat devil. However, a “power” of evil is a metaphysical oxymoron if God is truly All-Powerful. As Joseph Conrad said in his 1911 book Under Western Eyes, “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness.” [1]

However, Conrad’s observation raises an important issue which New Thought Christianity often finds uncomfortable: one cannot live a life on this planet without recognizing that there are evil deeds, evil ideas, evil intentions, and—yes—evil men. And women. Some people make horrific mistakes, bringing ruin on themselves and others, and the fact that good can come from every disaster does not require otherwise reasonable people to certify every painful mistake as a good choice. Common experience seems to show there are greater and lesser goods, even though the life program for each person may shift the values of good-and-lesser-good from situation to situation. Until a certain level of consciousness is achieved by all humans, conflicts will be inevitable. What’s good for the Indian war party defending their sacred hunting grounds is not good for the wagon train heading for Oregon.

Pacifism and “Just” War Theory: United in Goals

Having said this, it is still necessary to admit that at this stage of human consciousness some people choose to create circumstances so maladaptive and hurtful to others that the collective good requires their opposition. As Edmund Burke said nearly three centuries ago, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”[2] Pacifists insist there are no circumstances which require violence; advocates of the “just war” theory say not to fight Hitler would be an act of criminal negligence. Yet both are united in their goals, i.e., opposition to the forces of brutality and cruelty. The pacifist and “just war” participants merely disagree about means, i.e., about which tactics which can legitimately be used to overturn the brutalizers of this world. Pacifists say non-violence only; just war advocates say sometimes force is required.

Whatever tactic is used, there is arguably a universal theme running through the prophets, teachers and messiahs of humanity that insists, however defined, acts of “evil” must be opposed. Inaction is a choice, and the prophets, teachers and messiahs have decried the feckless response of those who chose detachment during times when decisive actions were crucial. In more recent times, Robert Kennedy (1964) said that one of his late brother’s favorite quotes was based on a scene form Dante’s Inferno, although it is often misreported as a line from the Italian poet’s towering work itself: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”[3]
.
One need not believe in a literal hell to grasp what President Kennedy heard in this popularized saying. Choices matter, and not to choose is sometimes the worst choice of all.

Parables about Choices: Adjusting the Sails

The Parable of the Talents introduces a proactive authority figure who makes decisive choices, much like the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. Other parables suggest that patience and inactivity are sometimes the best recourses, especially when life’s lessons have to be learned anew by the young. This is the lesson in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

The Parable of the Talents, however, tells another story. Three servants are given large sums of money to manage in absence of their supervisor. Two of them use the principles of circulation and increase their master's wealth. The third buries it in the ground for fear of losing it and getting in trouble. This parable shows how important it is to trust your gifts; it reminds people their choices matter, and that grown-ups meet their responsibilities without complaint. Finally, the return of the Master underscores the consequences of inaction when life requires decisive acts. The world is not always a happy place, but regardless of circumstances a person encounters, increase in prosperity, love and wholeness is possible. One can only hope the authors are guilty of succumbing to their own pessimism when both Matthew and Luke show punishment falling on the servant who gets it wrong. But even though the metaphor of “outer darkness” conveys fear and dread, the parable no where says this astringent consequence endures forever. There is still hope for a transformed person and a better world.

In the ancient world, the prevailing winds blew from many directions. These two parables show people responding to different challenges, adjusting their sails depending on the weather. Sometimes you act decisively; sometimes let go and let God. Spiritual wisdom means, in the words of the oft-quoted poem by Reinhold Neibuhr, "...the wisdom to know the difference."

Iraq War Requires Action and Patience: Congress Shows Neither

Real religion works in the real world. I tell my students we are studying metaphysics and theology in order to think metaphysically and theologically about life. I intend to do that now in regard to the War in Iraq. If you are uncomfortable with political commentary from a Unity theologian, minister and metaphysician, this would be a good time exit and return to surfing the web.

The Democratic congress just missed a opportunity to show leadership and stand up to President Bush's rush to Armageddon. Terrified that they would be branded for voting "against the troops," the congressmen and senators who were elected to end the American involvement in a foreign civil war simply rolled over and essentially gave the President a blank check for the next few months. Now he can continue to alienate the world against America. Now he can send 19-year-old kids from door-to-door looking for "terrorists" he has created by occupying their land. As a retired US Army officer, I am outraged that this President continues to place young soldiers in harm's way and then cries that it will be the fault of his political opponents if they are harmed. He has done what no other President in my memory has ever done--he is shoving the troops ahead of him and taking political cover behind their heroism and willingness to sacrifice for our country. Message: If you oppose George W. Bush, you are placing the troops at risk.

And I blame the Democrats for letting this deadly game continue. They control the purse strings of war, the budget. The British Parliament wrestled with their King for centuries before he yielded to their authority. How did they do it? By virtue of the one area over which they had absolute power: raising and expenditure of tax money.

Congress could have--should have--said to this President: "Not one cent more until you give us an absolute cut-off date to bring the troops home. And don't start whining about hurting the troops--you're the one who sent them over there on bogus intelligence and landed them in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war. You did it--now undo it!"

To return to Dolly Parton's metaphor, when the wind is blowing gale force, the time for sailing under full canvas is past. Trim the sails, ride out the storm, and head for port. Chances are good the storm will blow itself out, not follow you home...

____________

References:

[1] Joseph Conrad, Under Western Eyes, online quote source: http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/evil/ (Accessed 05-22-07)
[2] Edmund Burke, online source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk384617.html (Accessed 05-21-07)
[3] JFK Presidential Library website, online source: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Dante+Quote.htm (accessed 05-22-07)

How to Overthrow the Government and Bring about a New Revolutionary Consciousness Which Transforms the World

Pray with "denials", letting go of negative images, visualizing a better world. Pray affirmatively. Then vote. Pray more, affirmatively. Write emails to leaders. Pray unceasingly. Study the issues. Pray over them. Visualize the good established. Vote again--every election, school hourse to the White House. Pray again. Vote again. Pray. Vote. Pray. Vote. Pray...

You got the system.

Beware of Gnostics Bearing Gifts

The Sirens of Gnosticism
.
Because a barrage of popular publications have highlighted a few Gnostic ideas which sound compatible with New Thought Christianity, the idea has somehow circulated that Unity is a modern version of Gnosticism. After you have encountered the actual content of Gnostic belief systems, you will probably want to re-think those claims.

There were many types of Gnostics, apparently non-Christian Gnostics included pagans and even Jews. Their basic point was that salvation (variously defined) is only available through secret knowledge (gnosis), which not everybody will receive. Gnosticism was a flagrantly elitist, highly dualistic worldview which saw the physical universe as evil. Only things of the mind and spirit were good and potentially holy. In fact, Gnostics believed this world was so evil that the Supreme God could not have created it; some even said the earth was created by Satan, or some other lesser god, while God wasn't looking.
.
Women Must Become Men
.
Oh…and women are evil, too. Especially evil, because their seductive wiles draw men's contemplation from the higher things of spirit. The much-touted, Gnostic Gospel of Thomas concludes with these words, from saying # 114:
.
Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life.”
Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”
.
(Don't get mad at me--I didn't write that!)
.
.
St. Valentine, He's Not...
.
Valentinus of Rome (second century C.E.), arguably the best-known Gnostic teacher of antiquity, developed a form of Gnostic Christianity to a high level of complexity. Valentinius was born in Egypt and educated at Alexandria. He later established a Christian school at Rome, where according to Tertullian he had been on the short list for Bishop of Rome, today called Pope. He was probably influenced by Middle Platonism, which taught that God was transcendent being itself. While that premise does sound like New Thought, the problems come quickly when Valentinus begins unpacking his whole Cosmology.
.

Thirty Gods...You're Kidding, Right?
.
According to Valentinius, the Supreme God for its own reasons began creating spiritual beings, called Aeons (gods?) These represented various divine powers: Mind, Truth, Logos, etc. Taken together, these thirty Aeons constitute the pleroma or fullness. Last one, Sophia—wisdom—decided to create her own creature, Hokmah, but it was not perfect as she. Sophia and Hokmah together created the Demiurge, who was incompetent and ignorant. The Demiurge created material world, and the humans who live here.
.
Are you following this? 1) The physical Universe is so crass and evil that the Supreme God could not have created it. 2) He created thirty gods (Aeons), who were also too holy to have created the Cosmos. 3) The last goddess, Sophia, created her own clone god called Hokmah, who was also somewhat sacred and therefore could not have created the material world. 4) But when Sophia and Hokmah create a being below this last level--the Demiurge, who is also equated with the God of the Old Testament--it is this bumbling fool who finally drags spiritual power down low enough to make the world and all that dwells herein.
..
It gets worse...
.
The two semi-competent spiritual beings, Sophia and Hokmah, were able to undo only some of the damage by implanting the divine spark in a few humans. These were the Elect, who could be awakened to their true nature by knowledge (gnosis). But before you start hopping up and down, pointing to this as a New Thought concept, listen to the fine print: Only a very few people have this divine nature. Most humans are walking meat, nothing more.
.
Here's the Gnostic breakdown of humanity:
..
1. No soul – majority of human race is animal; perishes at death.
2. Soul – ensouled humans with opportunity for acceptable afterlife.
3. Divine spark – the few Elect who can re-unite with God in glorious eternity.
.
It is this third concept which some New Thought teachers admire. However the original Gnostic teaching was limited re-union with the Divine by the select few who qualify. Frankly, the idea of Gnostic “election” was dualistic, elitist, and mean-spirited.

.
Need to take a deep breath?
.
The good news in this mess is that no matter how alien these ideas sound today, in the second and third centuries all the above were considered Christian! This demonstrates the fantastic diversity of early Christianity; the fact that one party won the argument and became the universal (i.e., catholic) church viewpoint does not negate the fact that many, many options were on the table, even patently absurd ones like Valentinian Gnosticism, which was wildly popular for a long time. Early Christianity was an evolutionary jungle where new ideas tried to find ecological niches until a stable pattern developed. Given a few shifts in circumstances, a very different ‘orthodoxy’ could have emerged.
.
.
Startling Diversity
.
This startling diversity among early Christians is quite new to the modern reader, because the faction which Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina calls the proto-orthodox group—i.e., the minority viewpoint which finally became traditional Christianity—re-wrote Church history in its favor once they gained the majority. The proto-orthodox so successfully shaped the historical record that today people assume proto-orthodoxy has always been the majority view. Their version of heilsgeschicte (sacred history) sees an invariable, divinely ordained, straight-line progression from Jesus, to the early church, to the established religion of the high middle ages, and down through the coridors of time until today.
..
Of course, historians know this direct-line, single-faith theory is completely bogus. Christianity has been highly diverse from its beginnings, even on things as basic as how many gods there are. Some Christians believed in one god, other Christians insisted there are two, three, thirty, or even 365 gods. And they all taught this as Christian doctrine.
.
We stand in unbroken line with our ancestors, but so do almost all other Christian groups. Diversity rules in the corridors of time.
.
Still, the next time someone says with alleged historical authority that Unity or other New Thought groups are the spiritual descendants of Gnosticism, you might want to offer a second opinion...