interview with a seminarian

My wife works with a lady that is enrolled at Dallas Theological Seminary and, as part of her coursework, she is interviewing a number of individuals with various worldviews and religious values to write a paper on the findings. This person asked my wife if she or I would be willing to answer a few interview questions and help contribute to her research. After reading over the questions, I thought it would be a fun exercise in reflection and contemplation and wrote down my answers for her. I also thought it would be interesting to post those questions and answers here. 

As a note of disclosure, I would like to say - up front - that the some of the statements expressed here are facts, some of them are my own inferences from the facts, while others still are simply opinions.

---------------------

1. How would you describe your religious background and church involvement?

I would describe my religious/church background as both long and complicated. From a very early age I was exposed to the Christian tradition from a variety of different denominational perspectives - mostly Protestant in orientation - ranging from Four Square to Baptist, Methodist and Non-Denominational, Charismatic, Word of Faith and Reformed (Calvinist). I have some firsthand experience with Catholic liturgy but my experience
with the more traditional or orthodox (i.e. Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox) is very limited beyond that. My involvement in those churches has also ranged dramatically from one-time visitor to full covenant membership.

2. To you, what is God like? Describe God. (and if you do not believe in a [god], what is important in life?)

 
I imagine that this is difficult for anyone to answer outside of a traditionally dogmatic worldview, but I have to confess an ambiguous and ill-defined relationship to the divine. In other words, I'm still answering this question for myself and would suggest, perhaps at some level, that we all are regardless of the level of comfort we have achieved with our
conceptualization of God. In my own conceptualization, I might be most comfortable coming to an understanding of the divine that does not exist wholly outside of the natural Universe. I am not only comfortable with this idea of the divine because of my skepticism about the existence of the purely metaphysical (i.e. the realm of the supernatural), but also because of the implications of seeing the divine as removed from the physical
world. Perhaps too often our appreciation of "heaven" and "hell" have led us to neglect the "here and now". Moreover, the fundamental Christian fascination with the "hereafter" seems altogether incompatible with both the narrative of the Gospels as well as the apocalyptic visions formulated in the aftermath of the - alleged - Ascension. Simply put, every time I read the Bible Jesus seems to be talking about the Kingdom of the Heavens being established here on earth. Furthermore, outside of a few vague and ambiguous
references made by Paul in his letters, I see very little evidence of this "rapture" and "going to heaven" when one dies. I see a Resurrection that happens on earth (presumably on earth because it happens after his "return"), talk of "thy Kingdom come" (again, presumably here), a "New Jerusalem" descending from the heavens to earth, etc.

In my days of heterodox Christianity (and some might say "heretical") I visualized an idea of the divine as more akin to how the Hindus understand the Brahman, or akin to how Spinoza described the ocean of the divine and our individual selves being absorbed back into it after death. I am also comfortable with a thoroughly non-metaphysical understanding of the divine with respect to the Universe. Perhaps our eternal life is evident in the cyclical and recycling nature of the Universe with regard to matter. The atoms that make up our bodies assemble and disperse, never being "created" anew nor destroyed... simply changing form and phase forever. It seems more likely to me that the God so many of us were raised to believe does not exist - or exists in such a way that is so radically different from our traditional understanding that we - were we to ever meet "him" - would wish that he did not exist at all.

3. What do you think is important or unimportant to God?
This question relies, perhaps unjustly, on the suggestion that the divine has any kind of will at all. A will implies a need - or, at best, a want - and it seems to be that the God of the Christian tradition is so perfect and so satisfied that he has no needs or wants, thus no will either. I had considered, for a moment, that perhaps what was important to God is what
is important to all living beings: to continue existing. But, again, this is incompatible with the Christian understanding of God since God is incapable of losing his existence. What I imagine is unimportant to the divine is less contingent on what/who God is since I believe it would be true in any case. Whether God is the Christian God or a natural phenomena or non-existent, I do not believe that the divine concerns itself at all with our social convention: language, custom, law, morality or religion. To suggest that the
divine has "a dog in the hunt" among human customs is - at best - superstitious and - at worst - dangerously narcissistic.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that the "glory of God" is reflected in his creation, as so many texts in the Tanakh suggest. I would ask, then, where one might find evidence of God's premium on morality and obedience to "his law" in the behavior of his creation? Does any natural behavior suggest that there is a moral imperative inherent to us? Does Hurricane Katrina apologize for murdering so many people, destroying so many homes? Indeed, do we even call it murder when nature steals life from humans, animals or plants?
Indeed, do we even suggest a theft of life as though nature has no superseding ownership of it? The natural world acts without regard to Christian morals and, in the aftermath of breaking those morals, it continues to act with impunity! We call these things tragedy, but we do ourselves a disservice: nature's behavior is just. Yet it is not just because it does what it *should* do (as though it is ordained by the divine), but it is just simply because it does what it does. The world builds up energy, stores it and releases it as it requires. This, too, is how humans are. We build up energy, store it and release it. Whatever conventions we decide upon about an equitable or "ethical" way to go about this business is ours alone. To interject the trump card of divine imposition onto these ethics and conventions is inappropriate and counterproductive.

4. What do you think it takes to be straightened out with God?

This, again, suggests a Christian supposition that "we" are not already "straight"; that there is some kind of a "should", a metaphysical ideal, to which we do not adhere to. This may be the case, but it also may not be the case. The tension built up in the dialectic between determinism and free agency is not a settled one, but even if it were, we cannot suggest that God "is in control" and yet free him of his responsibility for our "sinful" state. In other words, God cannot receive all of the credit and none of the blame. He must be blameless of our sin - and yet admit to limited or no control over the world we live in - or claim control and be blamed for it! Or, at least, this is what the non-contradiction of Aristotelian logic insists on. Heraclitus might suggest differently.

It may very well be that our existence alone is what is required to be "straight" with God. Perhaps he has ordained our condition and confined us to a physical world to quarantine us from the rest of the supernatural realm? Perhaps you and I are those rebellious spirits that the Revelation speaks of and we have been cast to the earth - as though the earth was
God's washing machine - to be laundered and made wearable again by the divine? Perhaps you and I are the "devil". If we are to believe the Bible, we must already consider that we are the "Satan", since - as Paul reminds us - we are the enemies of God and, even in this condition, God saw fit to leave his place in "heaven" and inject within us the cure for our sinfulness in the form of Jesus. These ideas might seem outlandish and heretical, but they
must be considered and explored as diligently as the apostles explored the heresy of a transcendent YHVH made immanent in human form. To suggest that God does not want the mind to ask questions is laughably absurd! If God is who the Christians say he is, then he is undaunted by ontological investigation. If he is threatened by it, then he is not God and you needn't fear him.

5. Describe what the term "Jesus Christ" means to you.

Jesus Christ or, more appropriately, Y'shua HaMashiach conjures up a number of images, ideas and emotions in my imagination. Because of the cultural context in which I was raised, the personage and the narrative of Y'shua is - at some level - inescapable. I think that this must be true of most people that share our culture insofar as we all are forced to come to some kind of comfortable understanding of him. I have two distinct modes of reference to him: 1. The devout and reverent child and, 2. The classically skeptical historian. The first mode of reference should be fairly obvious to understand. The second may require some explanation. As a historian, I get no mileage out of the traditionally reverent attitude that used to define my relationship to Jesus so acutely. I am unable to look past the blatantly obvious holes in the narrative that forms the synoptic gospel tradition, nor lay down the methodological and disciplinary perspectives that challenge (for me, successfully) the Gospels' credibility.

It would be a cliche to refer to Jesus as a "good teacher", and I hate cliches as much as I hate platitudes (which are related but different). In the historical perspective, Jesus was a teacher - obviously. He taught... that's what he did. I do not, like some, believe that I see any kind of morality in the teachings attributed to him in the gospels. He gave almost no direction on questions of either absolute or relative morality. What I do see in his teachings is a particular emphasis on the creation, maintenance and reparation of ethical relations between people. One needs look no further than Matthew 5, 6 and 7 for a robust synthesis of these ethics. I believe that he also provided the oppressed peoples under his ministry a
path to assert their dignity and value without resorting to violent behavior (which, he rightly understood, would only worsen their situation both in the short and long term). His, mostly misunderstood, directives on "turning the other cheek", "giving the coat as well as the shirt" and "walking the extra mile" are historically specific teachings on how to endure the Roman occupation in a Jewish cultural context. Treating these teachings as ahistorical and removing them to the realm of universally divine truths only obscures his intentions in teaching them - while also opening them up to grave misinterpretation.

I respect and admire Jesus and he stands out in my historical imagination as a paragon of human ideals - whether real or fabricated by tradition. To the best of my abilities I try to remember that he was a historical figure that was wrestling with a complicated social situation on the ground. To the extent possible, I try to remove the mythological aura that surrounds him, an aura that - I believe - cheapens him and his contributions to human
development. His beauty, to me, derives from his humanity and the brilliance that is attributed to him, not the suggested divine narrative that is superimposed over his collection of teachings. To this perspective, many Christians have answered that - as C.S. Lewis once brilliantly summarized - "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." What I mean to say about this argument is that it is a brilliant syllogism: the truth of this claim relies totally on the assumption that Jesus *actually said* that he was/is the Son of God, which cannot be verified (independently or otherwise). The credibility of the passages that suggest he claimed this, within the oldest copies of the
Gospels, is also suspect with respect to literary device, epistemological analysis and historiotextual evidence brought to light by the discovery of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls. In other words, we can't be totally certain that Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God", no matter how much we want to believe it. And because we can't be certain, the possibility of
who/what/how Jesus is/was is as open-ended as any other question of significance.

6. From your perspective, what are the major problems of churches
today?

Where to start?! I might say that the largest problem of "the Church" and individual churches is the unwillingness to entertain, sanction or explore heterodoxical interpretations of Jesus and the divine. Many of the ideas I've expressed in the previous questions would be - at best - unwelcome at church and - at worst - would be treated with hostility (and, in some extreme cases, with violence). Churches, from my experience, rely too much on dogmatism, assumption, indoctrination and hierarchical reverence for authority and the authoritative treatment of source material. Partly because
of the nature of church leadership - and partly due to the rich abundance of churches in America - there is no avenue for respectful dissent within a church. If you have a doctrinal difference with the leadership, you are expected to either change your beliefs to match those of the leadership (and the church's statement of beliefs) or encouraged to leave fellowship. For most churches, it would be wholly unacceptable to challenge the
interpretation and doctrine provided by the pastor and the elders (if elders exist). Most programs funded by the church are intended to reinforce the doctrine of the church - none funded to engage the doctrine in scholarly criticism. This, also, I believe comes from an epidemic of insecure pastors, many of whom treat their churches as capitalistic markets and fear having any shadow cast over them that might insinuate a lack of divine
discernment. Simply put, if anyone successfully challenges a pastor's interpretation of scripture the people may think that he doesn't have the Holy Spirit leading him and may leave the church and take their tithes with him. Furthermore, the superstitiously false belief that one can have no education, no understanding of Hebrew/Greek (and not seminary Greek, which teaches a bastardized form of Greek that intentionally dismisses any pre-Christian meanings to the vocabulary and relies too heavily on ultimately
insufficient Latinisms to provide directional quality to definitions), no highly
rigorous historical/literary training, or a broader knowledge of anthropological and sociological research, and can interpret the texts of the Bible without any error via the "Holy Spirit" is both ridiculous and, to me, disgustingly outrageous. In other words, interpretation by revelation is no interpretation at all... it is ignorant opinion masquerading as exegetical discipline and has produced some of the most mind-numbing and repugnant doctrine ever conceived.

Moreover, American churches have become too invested in the socio-political framework of American culture. Advocacy on social issues, translated to political activism, has become the modus operandi of more churches than not, particularly evangelical churches in the so-called "Bible Belt". The perpetual harping from the pulpit on "issues" such as abortion,
homosexuality, immigration, healthcare and the laughably alleged "moral decline" of America is a major problem for the church-at-large. While individuals such as Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell may immediately come to mind in the imagination, they are simply caricatures of a much more pervasive and entrenched attitude among evangelical ministers and their congregants. The credibility (say nothing of its relevance) of Christianity
is in a crisis phase, whether Christians want to acknowledge it or not. In generations and centuries past, the institutional quality of churches (particularly among denominations) was large enough to steer Christianity in one direction or another and navigate it into evolving cultural relevance. Now, in the aftermath of a democratization process in America, churches are so isolated, fragmented and generally unaccountable that the cultural compass is no longer in the hands of capable, august and deliberate leaders but the vulgar mob. Doctrine is not judged on the merits of the scholastic rigor that produced it, but by its popularity and exposure on Fox News. This is another degenerative issue for the church to address.

--------------------------

Feel free to ask questions or comment as you see fit.

now taking requests

In a recent online conversation, my friend Terry told me that he was "troubled" by my opinions on Saint Paul of Tarsus. He asked me to specifically cover three things in a new blog post: my stances on the "divinity of Christ", the "Apostleship of Paul", and my thoughts on "New Birth" so that we could discuss this in greater detail. Without further ado. 


1. Addressing the "divinity of Christ" is not as simple as it seems. For the overly-pedantic mind like mine, this question is much more difficult than it would be for most. I want to try to deconstruct this question into two sections and then attempt to reassemble it into a coherent form. 

• In order to determine whether someone/something is "divine", one has to come to an understanding (or agree someone else's understanding) of what "divine" actually is. For most people, "divine" means "supernatural" or "metaphysical". This idea is predicated on the assumption (because it is currently an unproven hypothesis) that there is anything that exists outside of nature or the physical Universe. Cutting straight to the point: no one knows that the divine is actually real at all. Many believe it is, but none of us knows with any degree of certainty. In the strict linguistic sense of the word, we are all agnostic (Greek for a-gnosis, meaning "without knowledge") to the potentiality or actuality of the divine. Because I admit to a current state of metaphysical agnosticism (a state that all humans share whether we like it or not), I cannot therefore admit to knowing whether or not anyone in history had any connection to - or shared any kind of relationship with - the supernatural. It would be hypocritical and contradictory for me to admit otherwise. There is, however, a concept of the "divine" that exists within the framework of our own physical and natural universe. This concept of physis was explored by many of the ancient Greek philosophers and came to approximate a meaning of "that which comes of its own power" or, crudely, "nature." There are a number of modern philosophers and poets (such as Friedrich Holderlin and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as - in my opinion - Baruch Spinoza) that came to understand physis as the divine. Crudely stated (again), this worldview allows for no genuine possibility of a metaphysics or a "supernatural" as the natural is sufficiently "super" on its own. I cannot attest to the divinity of nature, but I can say that my experience with the natural universe lends me to a profound sense of humility, reverence and awe. As I heard a pastor say once, "Who can stand at the shore of the Pacific Ocean and feel anything but humility?"
  

• Another problematic element I have with a question of the "divinity of Christ" is the fact that there isn't really any one consensus on who/what "Christ" is. The Greek word "Christos" simply means "anointed." The word "anointed" means "to smear" (presumably with oil). The etymologies of these words are, as one can see, unhelpful. The conventional meaning of "anointed" is "chosen, consecrated, set apart" (again, presumably by YHVH, the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" and, subsequently, the Israelite, Hebrew-speaking peoples of the Jewish/Yahvist tradition). Terry's question also relies on a Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth "is" christos. Not only that he is christos, but that he is "the Christos", meaning that he is the one and only "anointed" one. The idea of anyone being a "christ" or the "Christ" is tied directly to the concept of the divine. What one believes about the former has an ipso facto relationship on the latter. As I said of divinity, humans exist in a current state of agnosticism with regard to divinity and, therefore, we must also exist in a current state of agnosticism with regard to the "Christhood" of Jesus. Again, that doesn't necessarily dictate what one believes - by way of assumption - about the Christhood of Jesus, but only what someone knows. I fully expect people, particularly believers in Jesus, to argue with my definition of knowledge or challenge my claim that no one can know with any degree of certainty that Jesus is divine. While respecting the claims that many Christians "know" what they "believe", I wholeheartedly disagree and make the counter-claim, respectfully, that confusing knowledge and belief diminishes the inherent value of both.
  

At the end of the day, I have to say that I am unable to make any claims to knowing that Jesus is christos, the Christos or that he had any particularly unique relationship to the "supernatural". What I can say is this: Jesus is unique in history and the human imagination. As I've said before, I cannot imagine that there is one person in the Western tradition since Jesus that has not been forced to come to an understanding of him. We've all had to "come to grips" with Jesus in one way or another without any regard to religion, creed or culture. All great thinkers since him have been forced to comment on his teachings and the narrative of his life, including founders of other religions. The teachings attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospel tradition are, bluntly, inescapable. In a philosophical sense, they reach back to the most ancient of Judaic principles of justice as an ethical relationship of how "the other" makes a claim upon and appropriates "the self", while not being strictly decalogical. In this way, Jesus has earned the epoch-dividing status that we have given him.

My personal appreciation of Jesus is to give him the title of hypso-anthropos - highest among all humankind. 

2. Terry's second request was for me to explain my opinions on the "Apostleship of Paul". This, too, requires some preliminary explanation. 

• The word "apostle" comes from the Greek apostolos, meaning "one who is sent out", with the context of Christian missionary work to a particular region or country. In this sense I can only answer: of course Paul is an apostle. In terms of numbers and metrics, Paul was the most successful missionary of the Early Church period. Some have also argued, I think successfully, that Paul single-handedly built the Christian religion as we know it.
• Terry's question of "Paul's Apostleship" as I understand it, however, comes with an underlying stigma of Paul's exceptionalism, his preeminence in Christian thought, and the authoritative quality of his writings and commentary on the overall meaning of Jesus as "the Christos". The number of churches that he founded are, alone, enough to indicate that he is both a brilliant writer and a powerful rhetorician. However, to speak of his "Apostleship" in the aforementioned way - I believe - is inappropriate. 
• Unlike most Christians, I do not regard the teachings of Paul as "inerrant" or "authoritative". In a purely Christian context, I would say that "Paul is not Jesus." I do not agree that Paul's writings were "dictated by the Holy Spirit" or that Paul was so devout and close to God - or the Resurrected Jesus - that he was incapable of interpreting the divine incorrectly or erroneously. Without a doubt, there are passages in Paul's writings that can hardly be argued with; they appear to be "self-evident" insofar as they have come to define an entire school of human thought that goes, mostly, without question. His teachings on "love" in 1 Corinthians 13 come immediately to mind as an example of this. But I, like Friedrich Nietzche, find that much of how Paul interprets Jesus is "hopelessly wrongheaded". His claims that Jesus was "sacrificed" on the cross for the "sins" of humanity (or, worse, for the "sins" of only the "elect") and that the power of human regeneration is found in the mystical power of Jesus' blood, transformed the paradigm-shifting message of Jesus into a new religion of mystically metaphysical phantasmagoria. I see Jesus' "gospel" as a counter-culture revolution against the violently oppressive dominion of human ego-centrism. Jesus' teachings (regardless of his ontology), crudely stated, free men from the thralldom of the "self." This revolution of the self - against the self - empowers a kind of reconciliation with - and a "rebirth" into - the "divine". I see Paul's "gospel" as one that pits the human and the divine against one another, relies on an over-emphasized concept of human "sinfulness", and requires a slate-clearing sacrifice in order to appease a "just", yet vengeful and bloodthirsty god. The fact that this sacrificial appeasement, in Paul's theology, was the "plan" or "idea" of the god is certainly unique, but I believe it is more a mechanism born from the limitations of monotheism than anything else. In the polytheistic mythologies, the god of vengeance and the god that helps orchestrate the "redemption" work against one another. Paul's monotheistic belief in YHVH does not allow for this narrative, so the One True God must be both the unintentional antagonist and the determined protagonist at the same time.
  
• The Christos of Paul's writings is a Greek hero: the superhuman, yet tragically-fated, figure whose divine parentage empowers an endurance and personal sacrifice that will save his people from impending doom. Perhaps the most unique Pauline twist to this classical Greek tragedy is, of course, his adaptation of the Jesus' alleged resurrection, which transforms the classical tragedy of Jesus into the classical "comedy" (from the Greek komos-oidos, meaning "song of happiness") of the Christos. Crudely stated, Paul brilliantly adapted the traditional narrative of Jesus of Nazareth into the Christian religion. And, as if that wasn't enough, Paul further alienates the "Jesushood" of his Christos by absolving his Greek converts from having to adhere to any of the cultural traditions that Jesus, himself, observed: circumcision, kosher dietary customs, the Jewish calendar and holidays and, yes, even the Tanakh. 
• By the time the apocalyptic Revelation of Jesus Christ was composed, the transformation from Jesus-as-Jewish-Rabbi/Mashiah to Christos-as-Greek-demigod was practically complete in the Greco-Christian tradition, as evidenced by the description of the Christos in chapter 1: 

"[I saw] one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white like wool, as white as snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength." - Revelation 1:13-16 (for comparison with ancient Greek gods, refer to images of Apollo, Zeus, Helios, etc.) 

• The very fact that the Christos is introduced by the author of The Revelation as the "alpha and omega" is indicative of the deliberate identification of Christos as a Greek personality. Some may claim that I'm "reaching" for this next point (a criticism I would accept), but identifying Christos with the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet (rather than, say, the Hebrew equivalent of aleph and tav), places the figure of the Christos as the "beginning and the end" of Greek language, linking the figure of the Christos with the critical element of Greek cultural tradition.
• Moreover, Paul, in his writings, seems particularly concerned with "his gospel" - and his position as the preeminent apostle to the "Gentiles" - being maintained in the churches he established. This is highly suggestive that there were rival interpretations of Jesus that were common and spreading at the same time as he was preaching to the "Gentiles" (see Romans 2:15, Romans 11:27-28, Romans 15:17-21, Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6-9, Galatians 2:12, 1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Timothy 1:11, 2 Timothy 2:8).
  

I expect, at this point, that some might be ready to accuse me of all kinds of apostasy, blasphemy and heresy. I think that would be unfortunate, albeit understandable. What readers should take away from my opinions about the "Apostleship of Paul" is: that I think Paul sincerely believed he had figured out the "mystery" of Jesus; I believe that he correctly adapts Jesus' ethics into his system of theology; I believe that he offers some brilliant and poetic adaptations of Jesus' narrative into a systematic theology of the Christos; I believe that he is mostly mistaken and that he - whether intentional or not - transformed Jesus the Jewish Rabbi into Christos the Greek demigod, and the paradigm-shifting message of Jesus into a re-imagined pagan mystery religion.

3. Terry also asked me to explain my thoughts on "New Birth". This appears to be much more straightforward than the previous two topics. In John 3, Jesus is having a conversation with Nicodemus about his "ontology". 

• During this conversation, Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be gennao anothen in order to perceive the "kingdom of God". Nicodemus, making the same conceptual mistake as every Christian theologian I've ever known, thinks that Jesus is saying "born again" or "rebirthed". He asks, wrongheadedly, "How can one climb into his mother's womb when he is already old?" Jesus' response is not particularly kind. Yet every theologian, biblical translator, pastor and Christian layperson I've ever known has made the same mistake in translation! Jesus is not saying "new birth" or "born again" but "regenerated" as indicated by the root words themselves: gennao, meaning "generate" and anothen, meaning "another" or "anew". 
• My reading of this passage is that Jesus is telling Nicodemus that, unless he radically reorients his life, he will be unable to perceive or participate in the "kingdom of God" that Jesus represents. As is thematic throughout the synoptic gospel narratives, Jesus is showing people how to "repent" (Greek metanoeite, meaning to "change the direction of one's thinking" or "reorient one's mind") from their self-oriented existence and be "regenerated" into a new kind of human that is able to dwell (from the Greek ethos, meaning "habit, character, nature, disposition, custom, way of dwelling") ethically (also from the Greek ethos, meaning "habit, character, nature, disposition, custom, way of dwelling"). It is on this point that I can provide an example of how Paul interprets Jesus correctly. In his letter to the Romans (12:2) he instructs the members of the church to "not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..."
• This regenerated human being, according to Jesus, looks very different from how we are used to behaving. It doesn't intentionally insult others, it harbors no anger against others, it regards interpersonal relationships and tranquility as more important than ritual or religious conventions, it does not "resist evil" people, it is detrimentally charitable, it is non-violent, it recognizes no person as an enemy, it is not publicly religious or pious, it is not materialistic, it is not judgmental, it does not insist on its own way. It is a difficult path that relatively few will ever be able to take up. Paul correctly reinforces this message when he writes to the Philippians (2:3), "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility consider others as more significant than yourselves."

So, to summarize my opinions in response to Terry's questions:


1. Is Christ divine? It depends on what you mean by Christ and what you mean by divine. I can't claim that I know whether or not Jesus was divine, but I consider him to be hypso-anthropos, highest in humankind. 
2. Was Paul an apostle? Yes, but that does not mean he was always correct about Jesus. In fact, his metaphysics of Jesus were dead wrong. I believe he correctly interpreted the ethics and metanoeite of Jesus, but I believe his interpretation of Jesus' metaphysical ontology resulted in a mystical pagan mystery religion based on sin, atonement and blood sacrifice, coupled with an marriage of the Jesus narrative and pagan Greek mythology. 
3. What does it mean to be "born again" or to have experienced a "new birth"? In the context of John 3, it means nothing because Jesus isn't saying that. He's talking about regeneration and "repentance" (in the form of reorienting one's mind and worldview) from a self-oriented life to a new "ethical dwelling" that values the "Other" over the "Self". 


I imagine that this post has either given you, the patient reader, incredible "tired head", angered you terribly, or has - in a miracle of miracles - provoked you to thoughtful contemplation. Whatever the case may be, I am interested in your thoughts, comments and responses. 

As always, leave the light on. 

thoughts on the christian spiritual tradition

In a recent post on this blog, I stated two opinions about the nature of belief in general and the Christian religion in particular. A friend of mine sent me a message asking me to explain what I meant by them. His message read:

Can you explain [these ones] to me:
- "Belief, especially religious belief, is one of the only conventions in the human repertoire that will blatantly defy 'reality.' And no, that's not a good thing."
- "I'm not entirely sure that the Jesus talked about in Christian religious traditions is broadly-enough defined. In other words: Jesus is interpreted too narrowly for my tastes within most expressions of Christianity."

I will attempt to tackle these explanations as best as I can and I hope to satisfy the spirit of the request if not the actual request itself.

The first statement that I want to address is the one concerning belief. I've set out to explore - via this blog - the difference between beliefs, values, ideologies and their relationship to objective reality. Beliefs, as I've come to understand them, are based almost solely on assumptions. This is different from my understanding of knowledge insofar as knowledge is informed by commonly agreed-upon empirical facts. (At this point I could digress into a lengthy bit about the theory of knowledge, the Latin etymology for "facts" and classical skepticism, but I won't. Anyone wanting to understand more about how those three items relate to my previous statements can look those up for his/herself.) Let me explain, crudely, the difference between a belief and knowledge. "God created the Universe." This is a belief. "The world is round." This is knowledge.

Because I feel certain that I'll be interpreted this way, let me say very clearly: there is nothing wrong with having a belief. We all have them both despite and because of our expanding knowledge-base as a species. The problem that I have is when people take a belief, which is fine to have in its own right, and elevate it to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth." It is my opinion that beliefs enrich our lives most when they are kept in their place: as beliefs. Beliefs, however, because they are often elevated to the level of "unquestionable authoritative truth" often cause believers to blatantly deny "reality" - the existence which can actually be confirmed and verified via empirically-derived factual knowledge.

I've gone round-and-round on this point almost two dozen times with friends, relatives and colleagues so pardon me as I return to it. The Book of Genesis is a beautiful collection of texts, narratives and traditions. It was (and continues to be) the basis for a number of traditions - when read literally - that blatantly defy what humans know about the Earth. The "heavens and the Earth" were not created in six, twenty-four hour periods. Humans know this. It isn't a guess. It isn't a belief. It is backed up by consistently validated, confirmed and verified facts. What's more is: these facts were originally discovered by committed and devout Christians whom, after having discovered them, did not become atheists or turn their back on Christianity but allowed this new information to expand and enrich their understanding of both the mundane and the divine. Holding to a literal interpretation of Genesis is every Christian, Jew and Muslim's right. It is, however, a profound example of how a belief leads people to blatantly defy reality. And no, I do not think that it is good for a person to deny a factually-informed "reality" for an assumption-informed belief. Especially when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of one at the zero-sum expense of the other.

Turning, now, to the question of the Jesus and his relation to mainstream American Christianity, I would like to first say that I, personally, believe there is something special about Jesus in human history. This belief is informed by several assumptions: a) he actually existed as a historical figure of which there is almost no extra-Biblical empirical verification that I am aware of, b) his life had any relationship to the narratives and texts which became the canonized New Testament of the Christian Bible and, c) that the authors of the previously mentioned New Testament texts are trustworthy hagiographers and worth giving the proverbial "benefit of the doubt." I feel that it is incumbent on me to state, very clearly, that I do not treat the New Testament as "authoritative", nor do I approach the texts uncritically. In my own exegetical endeavors, I have come to a number of conclusions that would - and have - angered a number of devoutly orthodox Christians. Most Christians I know believe that, while the original texts of the New Testament were penned by men, the words are actually the direct dictation of God. My research on this question has led me to conclude that at no point in the New Testament do any of the authors claim to have been directly dictated to, outside of the Book of Revelation, which has significant - and currently irresolvable - authenticity issues of its own. (Again, there is a temptation to digress into an explanation of Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16, but that will have to wait for another post if anyone is interested in hearing why it is not a claim of biblical divine dictatorship.)

What can be easily agreed upon by both the most devout and obstinate Christian and the most obstinate atheist is this: Jesus occupies an unprecedented place in human history. Major religious movements and traditions - as well as anti-religious movements and traditions - are devoted to him. Nearly everyone in Western society since him (or, at least, the birth of his movement) has been forced to think about him and come to some kind of understanding about him. Very few men, if anyone, have ever occupied this level of importance in human history: with all due respect given to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and any individual whose religious patron I have not referenced. The claim that the Beatles were "bigger than Jesus" set off a firestorm of controversy for a reason! In Western tradition - perhaps in all human tradition - no one is, or has been, bigger than Jesus. As Saul Silver might claim: Jesus is "the apex of the vortex" of Western spirituality.

It is both because of this and despite this understanding that I believe that Jesus is "too narrowly interpreted" for my tastes within most expressions of the Christian tradition. In my personal research into primitive Christianity, I have found that the earliest Christians were deeply divided over the nature of Jesus. Was he only human? Was he human at all? Was he to be understood only as a Jewish rabbi? Was he to be understood as the last of the Greek demigods? Despite the revisionist history that comes with the canonized New Testament, there was no monolithic movement which embodied a set orthodoxy of Christianity before - in the very least - the third century AD/CE. There were Ebionites, Paulines, Alexandrians, Romans, Nestorians and Donatists, just to name a few! The name "Christian" was given to anyone that followed the teachings of Jesus, according to the tradition they were exposed to.

"Orthodox Christianity" in a very real sense - despite the beliefs of many American protestants - is still not a settled question and, in my historical opinion, never has been. Deep-seated divides over what is "legitimate" within Christianity have not, to this day, been settled by anyone. From the earliest disputes between James and Paul to the Ebionites versus the Paulines, to the Pelagians versus the Augustinians, to the Roman Catholics versus the Eastern Orthodox, to the Roman Catholics versus the Protestants, to the Calvinists versus the Arminians... the divides continue, mostly because each side believes that they have an exclusive claim to the truth about Jesus. It is partly because of these exclusive claims - which are deterministically closed-minded about other interpretations about Jesus - that I claim that most expressions of Christianity interpret Jesus too narrowly.

Another reason that Christian interpretations of Jesus, in general, "turn me off" is that even with all of the intra-Christian dissent about Jesus, Christianity as a whole applies the same attitude about interpreting Jesus against "non-Christians." In short: Christians believe that you have to be a card-carrying Christian in order to contribute to a faithful understanding of Jesus. This, to me, is both odious and senseless. I feel that Jesus, according to my belief in his special-ness, is far too large of a personality in human history to be closed-minded about. Let me clarify further: the more solid and inflexible your beliefs become about Jesus, the more narrowly you interpret him - the smaller he becomes. I speak from vast personal experience on this matter. It is my opinion that the more you try to define something like Jesus (whether as a person, an ideal, or simply an idea), the more you attempt to contain him... the more you attempt to limit his being and inspiration. Despite his obviously central role within Christianity, most expressions of that tradition - to me - do far too much defining, limiting and containing for my tastes. I prefer to believe that if Jesus is "the apex of the vortex", then he won't mind any of my attempts to find his inspiration, example and the wonder he represents in "unlikely" places.

Feel free to leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. As always, please leave the light on.

it's all greek to me

I've danced around the idea that there is a greater need for anyone reading the Bible (believers and non-believers alike) to develop a robust familiarity with classical Greek and ancient Hebrew in several posts over the "history" of the blog. I want to be clear: what I'm suggesting is both bold and unpopular. It goes against quite a bit of tradition, especially in England and America, of faithfully reading and interpreting the Bible in the vernacular English. I decided to post this entry to explain what I mean by my claim and, hopefully, to back it up. As always, I have no intention for anyone to simply take my word for it but, rather, to approach this question with an open mind, study it for the him/herself and incorporate it into their understanding of the sacred.

I plan on using a specific example to explain my position, but the main point I want to make is this: whether you're using the Bible to justify your belief or criticizing the Bible from a place of unbelief, it's much better to know Greek and Hebrew language, culture, history and literature. The more you know about ancient Hebrew, Greek and - to an extent - Latin, the better you will be able to come away with an interpretation of the texts that is both fair to the text itself and to the individuals that transcribed them.

Example - The Gospel of Jesus Christ According to John, chapter three, verse sixteen (John 3:16)

I think that nearly any Christian - or even some non-Christians that have been to church before - will be familiar with this text. In many ways this passage is the passage which acts as the common thread for all of the various different denominations and confessions within the Christian tradition. During a private conversation that Jesus is having with a member of the religious/political elite, John records that Jesus explains his "ontology". The passage - in the English Standard Version of the Bible - reads: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." For most Christians, this passage is very straightforward. To them it outlines the following basic truths (if I miss something, or get something wrong in this list, please feel free to tell me):

- God loves the human race
- He sent his son to the Earth in the form of Jesus
- If you put your trust in the divine power of Jesus as the son of God, then you will be enter the church of redeemed saints and allowed into Heaven when you die

In order to understand this incredibly deep text I'm going to provide the original key words in the Greek from this passage and then break down the passage itself.

"Theos houto agapao kosmos didomi monogenes huios pas pisteuo [negative article] apollumi echo aionios zoe."

There should be no doubt as to why this verse is so popular in Christian traditions: it's absolutely beautiful! Pure poetry. What little bit that comes through in the English translation is eclipsed by its stunning Greek origins. Allow me to offer an alternative translation of the Greek text to English:

"God had such a perfect compassion on the entire Universe, that he generated a singly unique being for it. Everything that is entrusted to this singularity will not decay into uselessness and futility, but continue to exist without boundries."

When looking at the actual Greek vocabulary that John used in this text, the whole passage begins to take an entirely different shape. Here are a few key points to illustrate what I mean:

- The word for "the world" that John uses is kosmos, which carries a unique Aristotelian concept along with it. In a nutshell, John is saying that God loves not just the people on the Earth (which would have been the word anthropos) but everything in the Universe and the Universe itself.

In other words: The God that John is describing in this text is not only concerned with people, but with the order of the entire Universe. From a scientific point of view, one could argue that God's concern with the Universe is at a subatomic level.

- Traditional interpretations of monogenes huios as "only Son" or "only begotten Son" are problematic, not because it is "incorrect" but because it is a very narrow interpretation for a pair of terms that have very wide interpretive meanings. A fair interpretation of the Greek word monogenes huios would be "a singularity that was generated from one's own being." To simply say that John is calling Jesus "the son of God" actually limits and subtracts from the text since the phrase he uses is much larger and broader.

In other words: the Jesus that John is describing is actually bigger than "the son of God."

- Probably the most interesting and potentially troublesome translation in the English versions of the passage are for the words pas pisteuo. The trouble here is almost entirely linguistic in nature. Most European languages that are derived from or influenced by Latin have a complete lack of a "middle voice" that Greek has between the active and passive. Moreover, the Greek word pisteuo can be read in all three voices, making it difficult to understand outside of a context. Finally, the original Latin translations of the Bible (from which English versions later came) do not have middle or passive connotations for their analogous versions of pisteuo (both credo and fidelus).

In other words: pas pisteuo could mean "all who believe" or (perhaps more likely given the context of Jesus' statement) "all whom have been entrusted to." This, obviously, poses serious questions to orthodox Christian theology because it implies that the belief of the sinner is not a requirement for the soteria (complete healing) of God.

- The final two ideas that benefit from a more objective interpretation are those of "die" and "eternal life." The word used here for "death" and "die" is rooted in the Greek word apollumi. Death is a faithful translation of this word, but it also has a broader understanding. It is not only "die" but it means "decay" and "descend into futility." John is not only talking about physical death, but he's also referencing a qualitative lack of "life." It is this idea that perfectly contrasts the following image presented in the words aionios zoe. This is traditionally interpreted (via the Latin) as "eternal life" or "everlasting life." This translation is incomplete because it focuses only on the quantitative aspect (like duration and time) rather than incorporating the qualitative aspects. More than just "life that goes on forever," the Greek says "life without limitations or boundaries."

As I said at the beginning of this post, I hope that the information I've presented explains my opinion that literacy in Greek and Hebrew is important for Biblical research and readings. Of course it is possible to "get something" out of reading the Bible in English. Christians in the English-speaking world have been inspired by English vernacular passages of the Bible for centuries. My argument is that those that would use the Bible to make claims about truth or reality (both believers and atheists) should do so from an informed and educated point of view and not to rely on shoddy interpretations based on incomplete vernacular translations.

Feel free to comment as you see fit.

the gods must be angry

The Preamble: So I've been reading a book called "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna and I have to recommend it to anyone searching for a very authentic and original examination of the Christian church. Reading the book and examining the evidence provided has also rekindled my own thoughts about the pagan nature of what most people call "Christianity". (*Disclaimer: None of the information I address in this post has anything to do with what is discussed in the previously mentioned book and I do not represent the authors or their viewpoints.*) Some of the more difficult questions I've had to work through revolve around the roots of morality as a cultural bonding agent and its preoccupation with the ancient pagan fertility gods.

The Case: Let me start by saying that I did not come to any of these questions or conclusions lightly. The sensibilities put in me from my childhood were just as offended in my initial discovery of what I plan to share with all of you as yours are certain to be. What can be certain, however, is that when you start to examine the stability of your foundations and when you begin to perceive that the foundations and structure you've inherited are inherently flawed it can be a frightening experience. I want to approach this topic as sensitively and gingerly as possible without mincing words or watering down my case. I encourage you to continue to respond in the form of comments (for dialogue and discussion), emails, and phone calls because this topic is (in my opinion) too important to walk away from without engaging.

All of that being said, let me dive right into it. There are certain facts about how ancient paganism has infiltrated the modern "Christian" community that are readily obvious to even the most casual question-asker. Some of the easiest examples to digest are found in Christian sacred holidays like Christmas and Easter.

In regards to Christmas, celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25 is a holdover from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to Sol Invictus ("the Invincible Sun" god). There is no solid archaeological, Biblical, or empirical evidence to suggest that Jesus was born on December 25 (or even in the winter). One of the main reasons that this has never been challenged by church leaders or theologians is that there is very little evidence to suggest what time of year Jesus was born at all, so no alternative date has ever been offered. Generally for most Christians the date makes little difference because there's no harm and no foul in the current tradition. Let me be clear: I'm not anti-Christmas or trying to argue against the holiday. I'm simply trying to cast some light onto how our traditions started and allow you, the reader, to come to some sound conclusions on what it means for you. The question that should come to mind, however, is this: if Christmas is in the top two most sacred holidays for Christians, why would the Gospel writers not give us a relative timetable for his birth? (All we're given is clues as to the year it happened.) The answer is in the history. The original Christians (including the Apostles and the Apostlic church fathers) didn't celebrate Christmas. There is no teaching in the New Testament or by the Apostlic church leaders of the first 300 years of Christianity suggesting they ever celebrated Christmas. In fact, the only truly Christian holiday they celebrated was the Resurrection (what we now call "Easter"). Most of the holidays the first Christians celebrated were the Jewish religious holidays like Passover. And that, of course, brings us to Easter.

Easter, as we've come to know it, was not celebrated by the first Christians either. The early church celebrated the Resurrection every single day. They held meetings every day (very different from our "church") to discuss the Resurrection and celebrate it, pray for one another, tend to each others' needs, and then they celebrated the Resurrection by partaking in communion every day. But even their communion was different from ours. It was not a saltless wafer and grape juice (real wine if you belong to a more liturgical congregation). The entire Christian population in a given city or town gathered together at a central meeting place (usually a large house - where all daily church meetings took place) and ate a large and hearty dinner there including whole loaves of bread and barrels of wine. It was, essentially, like a wedding banquet every day! But when it comes to setting apart one day in early-mid Spring for celebration of the Resurrection... that didn't begin until after 325 AD when the Roman govenment took over as the central power of the "church". It was then that Easter, like Christmas' from Sol Invictus, was taken from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to the fertility god. Easter bunnies, eggs, mandatory church attendence... all of this is a holdover from the ancient fertility god. When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the Roman government in the early fifth century the new Roman "bishops" (which were simply Roman pagan nobles given new positions of great power) decided to merge the very popular pagan holiday with the Resurrection since they both signified "new life" and, thus, Easter was born. Even the mandatory church service was a holdover from the old fertility god. Romans, under the pagan system, were strongly encouraged to visit the temples of the fertility god in order for that god to continue to give to all of Rome's empire agricultural and reproductive fertility. Since, under Christianity, the old fertility god had been replaced by one God and a very powerful symbol of life and fertility in the Resurrected Christ, the old traditions simply made way for new names and new gods.

What's important to remember about this is that the Romans lived in absolute terror of angering the fertility gods. They believed that if they did not continually satisfy the fertility gods, then those gods would cause the land to stop producing food, the rivers and lakes to dry up, and the women to stop having children. Without water, food, and new Roman boys the empire could not maintain its staus and power in the world. When the people of the Roman empire came to believe that there were not many different gods but one all-powerful God, the fear and dread of that one God became even more intense and the already-existing pagan morality became even more strict. The empire could not afford to risk angering this new God: a god - according to the Jewish scriptures - that was able to cause droughts and floods, was able to open and close the wombs of women, and was able to turn farmable lands into fields of blood. This ancient pagan devotion infiltrated the Roman "Christian" church from the very beginning and has not left since.

It is this pagan sense of morality that I intend to dive deeper into. By now you may be asking yourself, "Why does he keep saying 'pagan' and 'morality' as if they're linked?" That would be a truly excellent question to ask. One of the points I intend to show is that morality is not a creation of New Testament Christianity but, rather, pre-Christian paganism. Furthermore, this morality hasn't fundamentally changed since the first pagan society was formed and the very same pagan morality that existed in ancient Sumeria still exists today: it exists in our modern world as the foundation of western civilization, even as the backbone of the American culture and the skeleton of our modern - yet incredibly pagan - "Christianity".

It may surprise many of you to find out that morality as we know and practice is not Biblical in origin (neither Old nor New Testament... more on this in a little bit). For as long as humans have been living together in towns and cities, and as long as governments have existed, and as long as the old pagan gods have been worshipped by tribes and nations - morality has existed. The very first comprehensive morality code was created by the Sumerian/Babylonian civilization under a ruler named Hammurabi (1795-1750 BC), at least 300-500 years before the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and the creation of the Ten Commandments. Depending on the dates of Abraham's departure from Ur (which was under the rule of what became Hammurabi's kingdom), Abraham and Hammurabi could have been contemporaries and Abraham could have taken the existing Babylonian morality code with him as he travelled to Egypt and Palestine. It is also just as likely that the Israelite culture, in keeping with the tradition of Abraham, was influenced by the existing morality code of Hammurabi when they produced (at the instruction of God, according to the texts) the Ten Commandments.

Now whether the Jewish Law was borrowed from another culture or whether it was hand-written by God himself is not really the question. It is an interesting question to get into, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to point out is that what we consider "Biblical morality" actually existed in a culture that was, in no way, devoted to the God of the Bible. Hammurabi's morality code (which rivals the detailed laws in Leviticus) was developed in service to Babylonian pagan gods. And it isn't just Babylon, either. Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome all shared the same morality code. Surprisingly enough, four of the ten commandments are found in every single morality code in history: do not steal, do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery and two others were present in all pagan cultures: do not covet your neighbors possessions, and honor your parents.

All of that simply goes to show that the only thing that was unique about the standard morality code of the ancient Jews is that it was done in devotion to one God instead of many gods. But, more importantly, the ancient Jews shared the same rules, laws, customs, and taboos as their pagan neighbors when it came to issues regarding the fertility gods. Some of the most oft-repeated miracles in the Old Testament revolve around Yahveh (God) performing miracles of fertility: making barren women have children, making the crops grow, making the rain fall on drought-ridden lands... producing prosperity and ensuring the survival of the Israelite people through history. These were the very same miracles that the pagans asked of their gods and the pagans had special altars, special sacrifices, and special rituals to help get the favor of the gods just as the Jews did with Yahveh.

So, you may be asking, am I saying that the Jews were really pagans or that the Old Testament of the Bible is a copycat of the pagans? No, I'm not saying that. It should be noted that while Abraham followed the instruction of Yahveh, he still came from a pagan culture and it is never said that he rejected that culture. While the decendents of Abraham dedicated themselves to the One God, they still kept their knowledge of other gods and it was not uncommon for men in pagan cultures to devote themselves to one god over another in the group: the god of war for soldiers and warriors, the god of agriculture for farmers, the god of the sea for sailors, and the fertility god for nearly every woman on Earth whose worth was tied to the production of children. Abraham simply chose a mysterious, powerful and unknown God to dedicate his family to and that family (which would become the Jews and Arabs in later generations) knew nothing of monotheism as a religious practice until the Exodus and Moses.

But what does this have to do with our modern "Christian" morality being pagan in origin? The religious priesthood and authorities of all pagan cultures before Christianity had the same kind or moral system that we do and it was, like many other things, totally preoccupied with the fertility gods and the cultural survival that those gods represented. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all had cultural and moral taboos against homosexuality, for instance. These moral taboos weren't always enforced (as we all know in history) because of the impact of hedonism but we know, in history, that many of the Roman emperors (before Christ and Christianity) outlawed homosexuality and cracked down on notorious locations of gay orgies because they were concerned over the morality of the empire and the impact it may have on the blessing of the gods (most especially the fertility gods).

Adultery and prostitution was also outlawed heavily from time-to-time for fear of angering the gods as a culture, but not because it was a betrayal of the sacred marriage bonds as we percieve it in a modern post-Christian culture. In the ancient world (and even parts of the world today) marriage was not done for love between two people. Marriage was a contract between families to hand over the ownership of women to men so that the man could use the woman to produce children. Women, in marriage, were not objects of love and beauty but objects of breeding. I apologize for offending any sensibilities when I say this, but it is from this built-in tradition of breeding that men - even today - continue to obsess over the hips and busts of women! And in this light our cultural and moral opposition to adultery does not come from a betrayal of love but a violation of property. It would be as if one cab driver took another cab driver's car to use for his own pleasure. The owner of the cab probably has little sentimental attachment to the car when you compare it to depriving the owner of his ability to use that car to provide for his family.

So, I'm sure you're asking, what's the point of all of this? What am I trying to say? Let me break it down as much as I can and get straight to the point.

America has a very strong moral backbone. It is built into nearly every institution we have and it is entirely inseparable from the culture and the society at large. Since the creation of the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD (and nearly every single denomination that has followed since the Reformation in the 1500's) Christianity has become synonymous with morality. Christianity has adopted many things over the last 1700 years which Jesus, the Disciples, and the Apostlic church leaders never intended it to pick up and a systematic "morality", that ultimately seeks to gain the favor of God (or, more accurately, the gods), was one of those things. We've made hot-button issues out of adultery, abortion, and homosexuality because they offend our cultural morality and then call it Christian. But that morality was created, originally, by pagan societies, adapted for a single God by the Jews (with the best of intentions, I'm certain), abandoned by the New Testament and adopted again by pagans in Christian clothing after the early church fathers and the Twelve Apostles were long dead. The ethic of the New Testament is not one of morality but one of the Divine Character: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Galatians 5:22). Christians in the New Testament are instructed on how to live as Christ did, conforming themselves to His example - going to the "moral outcasts" and bringing them into a redemption that morality and "the law" could never give.

It is the time for all New Testament disciples of Jesus to see the moral code we've adopted for what it is: a pagan manifestation intended to curry favor with the gods. We can see it when Jerry Fallwell blamed 9/11 on abortion. We can see it when Pat Robertson says that Katrina happened because of homosexuality. We can see it when James Dobson warns against calamity and disaster because of adultery and the failure of the family unit. These men do not represent the Jesus of the New Testament but the old gods of paganism when they claim such things. We put ourselves under the yoke of the old gods when we live in fear of violating morality for even more fear of disaster being brought to our doorstep. God is not a vindictive old man with a thunderbolt waiting to crush you under his feet if you fail to please him. That's not what Jesus tells us about God... and if Jesus is who he said he is, he ought to know!

The mission of the New Testament church is not to fight the "moral decline" of America or western civilization. Leave that to the pagans in Christian clothing. The mission of the New Testament church is to love and support the moral outcast without any agenda or ulterior motive. It is to let their love, not their tired sermonizing, do the preaching to the "lost" and broken. Is abortion heartbreaking? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Is adultery heartbreaking and harmful to families? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Does homosexuality miss the ideal of human monogamy and family creation? Possibly - but I'm not one to say and never will be. But I do know this: morality isn't the answer - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.

"I seriously command that you may not exploit your neighbor or oppress him... You may not curse the deaf or trip the blind... You may not slander or spread rumors and gossip about your neighbor and do not treat the lives of your neighbors as worthless... You may not secretly hate your neighbor... You may not seek revenge or keep a grudge against any of your people. You will love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." - Leviticus 19:13-18

"If all you do is love those that are like you, what good is that? Even the pagans do that much. No, I am telling you this... live generously and graciously towards others in the same way that God is generous and gracious towards you." - Jesus, Matthew 5:47-48

The Question: I realize that this post, somewhat differently from other posts, works from an assumption of Christian spirituality as opposed to a more universal and generic framework that I usually work from. This was done in order to respond to a specific problem I perceive within the framework of Christianity in order to start a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians about the foreign and dangerous nature of the infiltration of pagan morality. There is no question this time... I'm just asking that we begin the dialogue.

Leave the light on.

if it ain't broke...

The Preamble: I was sitting down with a friend a couple of days ago discussing what I'd written over the theory of "rights" and I was walking through my points with him when he stopped me to ask: "Ok, so if you're saying that rights don't really exist and saying that we should stop using that system, then what are you offering in return? What other system are you saying we should be using instead?" If ever there was the "right question" to ask - that was it.

In trying to give him an acceptable answer I began to remember something I heard Dallas Willard say when I saw him speaking at a conference in Kansas City. He talked about how, in his driving all around L.A., he sees these bumper stickers that say: "Stand up for your rights!" I have no doubt that we've all seen them. Anyone born in the U.S. since the 1960's and/or has listened to Bob Marley should be familiar with that mantra. What struck Dr. Willard was that he has never recalled (and neither have I for that matter) seeing a bumper sticker that said: "Stand up for your responsibilities!" But it is the fulfillment of our responsibilities, not the protection of our rights, that holds the key of true freedom (not just "liberty") for all of mankind. Allow me to make my case.

The Case: Responsibility is a loaded concept these days. In our modern rights-driven culture "responsible" is a problematic idea - something that we shy away from throwing around at each other. To accuse someone of being irresponsible - indeed to be accused of being irresponsible - is to immediately invite conflict. In our modern and, literally, self-centered worldview the attempt to limit our own personal liability and responsibility is priority number one for many people. We see it everywhere and in nearly every aspect of our lives.

We see it in our obligation to pay taxes. We want the government to decrease our tax responsibility in order to keep more of our money. But, for many of us, we also would like to know that the government has less of our money to "waste" on entitlement projects. This, of course, reminds us of the infamous quote by the Biblical Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"* In other words: "I'm not responsible for anyone other than me. Don't bother me with anything that isn't in my own immediate self-interest."

We see this attitude reflected in our legal system. We speed, drink and drive, defraud our brother, commit murder... "Not guilty, your honor." In other words: "I know I did what I'm being accused of, but I should not and do not want to be held responsible by the state or society." We see it when someone sues McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves. We see it whenever someone asserts their rights to free speech or free religion or free whatever. Our legal culture and society screams out: "You can't make me responsible!"

We see it in our children and when we make utterly incomprehensible excuses for their simply inexcusable behavior. We see it in ourselves whenever we offend a neighbor and immediately assert that it is they that shouldn't be offended by us instead of taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness. We see it when someone is shocked that you would admit to hitting their parked car instead of simply driving off. We see it when we come walking out of the mall and find our parked car damaged. We see it everywhere we look. "You can't put the burden on me!"

But I ask you: if the burden is not on "me" and everyone is a "me", then where shall the burden lay? Where does the responsibility lay if not on "me"? How selfish and conceited have we all become that we all stand around pointing the finger outward chanting with our actions: "I'm not my brother's keeper"? The old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Let me assure you all - this system of individual rights and limited responsibility is broken. It is so broken and so hopelessly worn out that the suggestion that we can make it work "perfectly" is laughable. So laughable that the mantra of "I'm not by brother's keeper" is accompanied directly by "Well, it's not a perfect world." As if, by rattling off that old axiom, the world's problems are somehow removed from our hands and we're clean of the consequences. If I haven't made my point yet, please allow me to make it:

You cannot fix the problems of this world until you accept your responsibility for contributing to them. And you cannot accept your responsibility for the problems of this world until you quit carrying around your "rights".

Rights and responsibilities, regardless of what you were taught in grade school (or Sunday school), do not mix. One focuses all of the productive powers inward on the self and the other focuses those powers outward on others. Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves. And lest you be tempted to argue that you can - or should - balance the two, remember this other axiom: "A man cannot be loyal to two opposing 'masters'. At some point he will begin to resent one and worship the other."** In our case the choice is far too clear to ignore. You cannot retain the ultimate loyalty to yourself while also putting forth an ultimate loyalty to something that will cost your "self". You cannot be selfish while also being selfless.

The reason that this kind of responsibility sounds so crazy and implausible is not because it is impossible. It sounds crazy because no one is willing to be the first one to do it. We're like a group of school kids in the first day of class unwilling to engage the teacher or each other for fear of being wrong or looking stupid. We're too in love with ourselves and our own self-image to do the right thing.

We're too in love with our luxury and comfort or, for many of us that are barely making ends meet, whatever luxury or comfort we've got. For me it's a $10 used Xbox 360 game. For you it could be new "7" jeans or a Lexus. More square footage in your living space or a pool in the backyard. It could be the moonroof or the leather. It could be the pack of cigarettes or the bottle of Jack. It could be the new CD or iPhone. It could be a Venti Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte from your local Starbuck's instead of a Tall. It could be a "nice" dinner at Fogo De Chao instead of Chili's. Your "rights" tells you to increase your standard of living whereas "responsibility" demands you increase your standard of giving. (Thanks Trey! You're the shiznit.)

And it's not just money, either, though money is the easiest thing to point out. It's the way we spend our time (because time is the only true commodity any of us has). It's the way we resolve (or don't resolve) conflicts and disputes... it's the reason we even have conflicts and disputes!*** It's the way we get irritated at the person on the other side of the drive-thru speaker for not having an "American" accent or good English diction. It's the way we tip our servers (and not just restaurants, either) based on "how well they do" instead of dropping a generous tip at the very beginning and leaving it there regardless of your experience... and doing it every single place you go.**** It's the way we get road rage and employ our horns and fingers in the car. Its the way we get offended for any reason at any time.

Let me be clear to you about one thing. If you get nothing else from me please get this: a person who does not claim to have rights can never have those rights violated. If we don't assert our "right" to dignity, no one can succeed in in-dignifying us. If we don't assert our right to property, no one can succeed in stealing from us. If we don't assert our right to liberty, no government can succeed in oppressing us. If we don't assert our right to our very lives, no one can succeed in taking them. If we don't claim ownership to any right, we can live in absolute fearlessness from losing them. This is true freedom. Freedom from attachment and fear of loss.

Oh, but I hear you protest: "That's not true, Jeremy! If we don't protect our rights we can guarantee we will be violated! And not just us, but our loved ones as well. Our spouses and children and families." Under the current system and worldview, yes - you're right. If what you're interested in making a priority in life is the continued exaltation of your own self-interests (and the self-interests of those around you), then exchanging your "rights" for selflessness and responsibility is the last thing you should do. Responsibilities are a "self-killer". They will put your self-interests in the ground every time because they will always insist on making the needs and interests of others a priority.+ You will, quite literally, lose yourself to the world.++ This is, perhaps, the most difficult question and uncomfortable answer of all. This is, perhaps, the most terrifying decision you will ever have to make. The decision to choose between your rights and your responsibilities will change the course of events in your life from the moment you make it until the day you breathe your last breath. The gravity and weight of it is totally inescapable... it is capable of crushing the strongest ambition, the strongest pride, and the best-laid plans. And if that wasn't gloomy and morose enough (or make me sound more like an angst-ridden teenage "emo" spouting out lyrics from The Cure and Radiohead) for you, then let me also point out that you've been making this decision since the moment your were able to make decisions and are in the process of making it even now. Take a moment, right now, while you're reading this to stop and digest that. Let it sink in for a moment and allow yourself to meditate on that one, single, inescapable reality.


-------------------

Ok. So you ask (and I've already gotten this question), what does the kind of responsibility that you're talking about look like? I will tell you this: you have probably never witnessed it with your own two eyes. This responsibility looks like every high virtue we've ever conceived of in our myths. It is the fundamental "morality" of our religions. It is witnessed in the greatness of our heroes throughout history. It looks like Samwise Gamgee carrying Frodo up the slopes of Mout Doom. It looks like Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrificing himself for his friends on the Death Star. It looks like Sydney Carton going to the guillotine instead of Charles Darnay. It looks like Mohatma Ghandi, living in poverty and starving himself in order to bring peace and justice to India. It looks like Mother Theresa, spending a lifetime in the foulest of gutters just to tend to the needs of the most conveniently and intentionally forgotten amongst us. It looks like Dr. King, a beautifully imperfect man, suffering injustice and indignity - without retaliation or malice - in order to expose the brutality of segregation and racism. And, yes, it looks like Jesus.

Jesus, that patient and radical rabbi, teaching, healing, feeding, challenging the social norms and the selfish bigotry of our world. It looks like Jesus allowing himself to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. He claimed no right. He defied no authority. He railed against no injustice. He suffered, prayed, and died... and did it victoriously. They did not take his dignity - he offered no claim to any. They did not take his freedom - he went willingly. They did not steal justice from him - he claimed a higher justice as his own. They did not take his life - he gave it freely. And just in case you want to feel bad for Jesus or think he got screwed: don't. The way the gospel narrative tells it, he planned the whole thing. And, as Dr. Willard reminds Christians (and, by extension, everyone else): "Jesus didn't die on a cross so that you wouldn't have to. He died on the cross to show you how to do it."

The Question: Only one question worth asking to this. Which will you choose? Your right or your responsibility?

Leave the light on.

* - Genesis 4.9
** - Matthew 6.24
*** - James 4.1-10
**** - Matthew 20.15, Luke 12.33
+ - Philippians 2.3
++ - Luke 17:33

da, comrade jesus?

Let me be immediately clear on two points:

1. Jesus wasn't a "communist" in the way that we think of communism.
2. "Communism" in the way that we think of communism, isn't communism.

Some readers took immediate exception to this comment on my last post: "... the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6)..." and, while I don't really intend to back off of that statement, I would like to clarify what I mean by that. I will retrace the case for this argument in three points.

The Soviet Union, "Red" China, Vietnam, North Korea... these countries are not communist. I know that's what we've been calling them for nearly a century, but that's not what they are. These countries were/are single-party dictatorships. They are more akin to fascist states than the true definition of communist states and share more in common with Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, Fascist Italy, Revolutionary/Napoleonic France or even the current regime in Iran than a true communist state. All of these states and regimes were controlled by one dominant and unchallenged party and ruled by a premier that reigned with near-impunity. This is not communism in the text-book sense. In a theoretical sense, democracy is only the precursor to a more "perfectly equal" system of government: and that system is, theoretically, communism. Make of that what you will - but, rest assured, the "communist" bogeymen of yesterday and today are simply dictatorships.

Communism, in a true form, cannot ever be a government system because it requires the constant, wholehearted, and unanimous consent of its people. This, of course, will never happen. So why would I say that the first manifestation of the Christian church was "akin to a communist society"? Well - let's take a look at the cited texts:

"[The church in Jerusalem] committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers. Everyone around was in awe--all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met. They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (MSG)

"When [the crippled beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, 'Look at us!' And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, 'I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene--walk!' And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. With a leap he stood upright and began to walk..." - Acts 3:3-8 (NASB)

These passages of ecclesiastical history show us two very pointed facts about the first church. First, the disciples of Jesus (which numbered in the thousands at this time) turned their back on their possessions, wealth accumulation, and private ownership in order to voluntarily pool all of their combined resources. Some members had very little wealth to donate and some had a lot, but what's noteworthy is that all of the members' financial and provisionary needs were met. The second fact is that Peter and John, the two most powerful men in the Jesus movement, claimed to be broke when dealing with the crippled beggar. This instance, while seeming like any one of our own false claims when we're being accosted by the homeless man at the intersection, is consistent with other passages in the chronicle and also with claims by the Apostle Paul (the other most powerful man in the Jesus movement) when he claimed to be sustained solely by the generosity of the churches he visited.

These men are a far cry from the multi-million-dollar net worths of America's most prominent preachers, though there was every reason to believe that the Apostles could have very easily gotten away with getting rich off of the generosity of so many new converts (ranging in the hundreds of thousands and, eventually, the millions). One need only look so far as the Roman papacy to prove that point.

In short: if you find the concept of the Christian church being similar, in every tangible respect, to a communist society - it seems that your ideological framework is clashing with a very objective reality.

Leave the light on.