JR53: Saying 22 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: At the beginning of Stevan Davies's translation of the Gospel of Thomas, there's a Foreword written by Andrew Harvey. Harvey says this about the Gospel of Thomas: "If all the Gospel of Thomas did was relentlessly and sublimely champion the path to our transfiguration and point out its necessity, it would be one of the most important of all religious writings -- but it does even more. In saying 22, the Gospel of Thomas gives us a brilliantly concise and precise 'map' of the various stages of transformation that have be unfolded in the seeker for the 'secret' to be real in her being and active though [sic?] all her powers. Like saying 13, saying 22 has no precedent in the synoptic gospels and is, I believe, the single most important document of the spiritual life that Jesus has left us (pages xxi-xxii)."
 
Harvey then plunges into 5 pages of rapture on the ectastic meaning of Saying 22. None of which I agree with, of course. And none of which you're likely to agree with, either, if experience is any guide. But I thought maybe you and I could have a go at it.
 
J: By all means.
 
A: Okay. Here's the translation of Saying 22 as Stevan Davies's writes it:

"Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples: These infants taking milk are like those who enter the Kingdom. His disciples asked him: If we are infants will we enter the Kingdom? Jesus responded: When you make the two into one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the upper like the lower and the lower like the upper, and thus make the male and the female the same, so that the male isn't male and the female isn't female. When you make an eye to replace an eye, and a hand to replace a hand, and a foot to replace a foot, and an image to replace an image, then you will enter the Kingdom (page xxii and 25-27)."

Harvey's interpretation of this saying speaks of an "alchemical fusion" and a "Sacred Androgyne" who "'reigns' over reality" with actual "powers that can alter natural law" because he or she has entered a transformative state of "mystical union," where "the powers available to the human being willing to undertake the full rigor of the Jesus-transformation are limitless."

I'm not making this up, though I wish I were.

J: And there I was, talking about a little ol' mustard seed . . . . It's a terrific example of the danger of using "wisdom sayings" as a teaching tool. People have a tendency to hear whatever they want to hear in a simple saying. Parables are much harder to distort. Eventually I caught on to the essential problem that's created when you choose to speak indirectly to spare other people's feelings. When you use poetry instead of blunt prose, it's much easier for other people to twist your meaning intentionally. You can see the same understanding in the Gospel of Mark. Mark is blunt. He doesn't waste time on cliches and "wisdom words." He goes straight for the truth, and leaves no wiggle room for gnostic-type interpretations.

“The disciples said to Jesus: ‘Tell us what the Kingdom of Heaven is like.’ He replied: ‘It is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all. However, when it falls into worked ground, it sends out a large stem, and it becomes a shelter for the birds of heaven'” (Gospel of Thomas 20). Mustard Seeds by David Turner 2005, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

 
A: Harvey seems to have found a whole lot of wiggle room in Saying 22.
 
J: I must admit that Harvey's "revelation" of the Sacred Androgyne makes me feel sick to my stomach.
 
A: Why?
 
J: Because it denies the very reality of male and female. It denies the reality that God the Father is male and God the Mother is female. It denies the reality that everything in Creation is built on the cherished differences between male and female. Being male isn't better than being female. And being female isn't better than being male. But they're not the same. Neither are they yin-and-yang. They're not two halves of the same coin. They're not mirror images of each other. They're not a fusion -- they're not a Oneness -- like a bowl of pure water. God the Mother and God the Father are like a bowl of minestrone soup. You can see all the big chunks of differentness floating around in there, and that's okay, because that's what gives the mixture its taste, its wonder, its passion.
 
God the Mother and God the Father aren't the same substance with opposite polarities. No way. They have individual temperaments and unique characteristics. In some ways, they're quite alike. In other ways, they're quite different from each other. Just as you'd expect in two fully functioning, mature beings. That's why it's a relationship. They work things out together so both of them are happy at the same time. It's not that hard to imagine, really. They have a sacred marriage, a marriage in which they constantly strive to lift each other up, support each other, forge common goals together, build things together, and most importantly, raise a family together. They look out for each other. They laugh together. They're intimately bound to each other in all ways. But they're still a bowl of minestrone soup. With nary a Sacred Androgyne in sight.
 
A: Okay. So if you weren't talking about "oneness" or "alchemical fusion" or the "Sacred Androgyne" in Saying 22, what were you talking about?
 
J: Well, I was talking about the mystery and wonder that can be found in a simple seed. I was talking -- as I often was -- about how to understand our relationship with God by simply looking at and listening to God's ongoing voice in the world of nature.
 
A: Oh. Are we talking about tree-hugging?
 
J: You could put it that way.
 
A: David Suzuki would love you for saying that.
 
J: I was a nature mystic, to be sure. Endogenous mystics are nature mystics. They see the image of God -- and more importantly the stories of God -- in God's own language, which is the world of Creation. The world outside the city gates has so much to say about balance and time and beginnings and endings! The world outside the city gates is a library. It's literally a library that teaches souls about cycles and physics and interconnectedness and chemistry and complexity and order and chaos all wrapped up together in a tapestry of Divine Love.
 
A: What you're saying seems like a pretty modern, liberal sort of understanding. Were you able to articulate it this way 2,000 years ago?
 
J: Not to be unkind to modern, liberal thinkers, but when was the last time a philosopher of science sat down with a mustard seed and reflected on the intrinsic meaning of it? When was the last time you heard what a humble fresh bean can teach you about the spiritual journey of all human beings?
 
A: I see your point. People in our society don't usually take the time to sit down and "smell the roses."
 
J: Geneticists and biologists and related researchers can print out all their research on the genome of a kidney bean, and can even modify this genetic code in a lab, but to a mystic the kidney bean holds more than pure science.
 
A: So we've switched from mustard seeds to kidney beans as a metaphor?
 
J: Kidney beans are bigger and easier to see without magnifying lenses, and a lot of people have begun their scientific inquiries by growing beans in a primary school classroom. So yes -- let's switch to beans.
 
A: I remember being fascinated by fresh beans and peas when I was young. If you split the bean with your thumbnail, and you didn't damage it too much when you split it, you could see the tiny little stem and leaf inside at one end, just waiting to sprout. If you planted a whole, unsplit bean in a small glass-walled container, you could watch the whole process of growth -- the bean splitting open on its own, roots starting to grow from one end, the stem and leaf popping up, the two halves of the bean gradually shrinking as their nutrients were converted into stem and root growth. Somehow the bean knew what to do. It just kept growing out of the simplest things -- dirt, sunlight, water.
 
J: The bean is a lot like the human brain. If you plant it whole in fertile ground and provide the right nutrients, it grows into a thing of wholeness and balance and wonder and mystery. On the other hand, if you try to split it open, or extract the tiny stem hidden inside, or plant it on rocks instead of good soil, or fail to give it sunshine and water, it won't thrive. It may not even root at all. You can't force the bean to grow where it isn't designed to grow. You can't force it to grow once you've forcibly split it open. You can't force it to grow on barren rock. The bean has to be whole when you plant it. The outside skin has to be intact. The different parts inside the skin have to be intact. The bean has different parts, but it needs all those different parts in order to be whole -- in order to create something new. The bean isn't a single substance. But it is holistic. It's a self-contained mini-marvel that teaches through example about cycles and physics and interconnectedness and chemistry and complexity and order and chaos. It appears simple, but in fact it's remarkably complex. Creation is like that -- it appears simple, but in fact it's remarkably complex.
 
A: Why, then, were you talking about "male and female" in Saying 22? Why did you seem to be talking about merging or fusion of male and female into an androgynous state? Or a Platonic state of mystical union?
 
J: It goes to the question of context. I was talking to people who, as a natural part of their intellectual framework, were always trying to put dualistic labels on everything in Creation. Everyday items were assigned labels of "good or evil," "pure or impure," "male or female," "living or dead." It had got to the point where a regular person might say, "I won't use that cooking pan because it has female energy, and female energy isn't pure."
 
A: I'm not sure that kind of paranoid, dualistic, magical thinking has really died out, to be honest.
 
J: There are certainly peoples and cultures who still embrace this kind of magical thinking. You get all kinds of destructive either-or belief systems. You get people saying that right-handed people and right-handed objects are favoured by God, whereas left-handed people are cursed. It's crazy talk. It's not balanced. It's not holistic. It's not trusting of God's goodness.
 
A: And you were left-handed.
 
J: Yep. My mother tried to beat it out of me, but I was a leftie till the day I died. When I was a child, I was taught to be ashamed of my left-handedness. Eventually I came to understand that I was who I was. The hand I used as an adult to hold my writing stylus was the same hand I'd been born with -- my left hand. But on my journey of healing, redemption, and forgiveness, I came to view my hand quite differently than I had in my youth. Was it a "new hand"? No. Was it a new perception of my hand. Yes. Absolutely yes.
 
A: You stopped putting judgmental labels on your eyes and your hands and your feet and your understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God.
 
J: One of the first steps in knowing what it feels like to walk in the Kingdom of the Heavens is to consider yourself "a whole bean."
 
A: Aren't there kidney beans in minestrone soup? How did we get back to the minestrone soup metaphor?
 
J: A little mustard seed in the soup pan never hurts either.
 

JR52: Pelagius and Personal Responsibility

A: In our discussions lately, you've been emphasizing the role of personal responsibility in the journey of healing and faith, and I've been waiting for somebody to jump up and accuse you of being a Pelagian. How do you feel about the Pelagian philosophy of free will? For the record, Pelagius was born sometime in the late 300's CE, and died around 418 CE. He and his followers drew vicious attacks from Augustine of Hippo and Jerome, and Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy in 431 CE. 

J: Without getting too much into the details of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius on the nature of free will, I'd have to say that both of them were wrong.  

A: How so?  

J: Neither of them had a balanced view of what it means to be a human being. Augustine had no faith at all in the ability of human beings to consciously change their lives and their communities through human initiative. He thought people would be happier if they just accepted their miserable lot in life. Acceptance of Original Sin and concupiscence was the best they could hope for, in his view. His views on human nature have created no end of suffering for devout Christians over the centuries.  

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, Pelagius preached the opposite extreme. He taught the path of spiritual ascent -- anagogic mysticism -- which says that people can achieve a state of holiness and perfection if they just try hard enough. He placed the entire burden on the individual. This is no less damaging to people's lives than Augustine's idea. Neither man understood -- nor wanted to understand -- that the path of healing and relationship with God is a path of balance. There must be a balance between personal responsibilities and group responsibilities, a balance between personal responsibilities and divine responsibilities. In particular, there must be a willingness on the part of individuals AND on the part of groups to be honest about their own limits. This honesty is the foundation of great strength for souls-in-human-form. Unfortunately, both Augustine and Pelagius hacked away at this foundation with all their might. They both snatched away a source of deep courage and strength for Christians, and insisted on despair and self-blame in its place. It was a cruel thing to do.  

A: So your understanding of personal responsibility isn't the same as what Pelagius taught.  

J: It's important to note that in the Peace Sequence we've been discussing, I've placed personal responsibility as the third "gear" in the sequence, not the first gear. Pelagius and others have tried to place personal responsibility in the first position on the Peace Sequence, not the third position. They've tried to equate free will with personal responsibility, as if they're synonymous, as if they're exactly the same thing. But they're not.  

A: Can you elaborate on that?  

J: Personal responsibility is perhaps the most complex, most advanced skill set that human beings can learn during their lifetime here on Planet Earth. It's not a single skill or a single choice. It's what we referred to earlier as a "meta-choice" -- a pasting together of several smaller choices into something bigger. A meta-choice is so well integrated, so cohesive, so holistic that it often seems like a single choice. But actually it's a blend of several other choices. It's a blend of the choice to be courageous, the choice to be empathetic, the choice to be humble, the choice to be intuitive, the choice to be well organized, and the choice to be self disciplined. It's all those things together.  

A: You mean . . . maturity. Emotional, psychological, and physical maturity.  

J: Yes. It's maturity. It's individuation. It's compassion. It's Whole Brain Thinking.  

A: Using the whole toolkit of the human brain instead of isolated parts of it.  

J: The human brain has long been treated as a single organ, though really it's an interconnected series of semi-autonomous sectors, each with its own specialized ability to "choose" on behalf of the whole. When all the different choices work together towards a common goal, the human brain works smoothly. If "feels" like a single whole, a single choice. But really it's a combination of choices. When a person has arrived at the stage in life when he or she "gets" the concept of personal responsibility, it means his/her biological brain is working in a balanced, holistic way. The fruits of this long process should -- if all goes well -- START to be visible in the actions of people 16 to 18 years of age. The process isn't normally complete, however, until about age 21 or 22. If all goes well.  

A: Last week, after Vancouver lost to Boston in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals, large crowds of young people -- many of them now identified as coming from "good" families -- rioted in downtown Vancouver. There was a lot of looting and vandalism. Something tells me these young people haven't developed the Whole Brain Thinking approach to personal responsibility.  

J: There were some people in the crowd who stepped forward and did the right thing to protect others who were being beaten. These Good Samaritans are the individuals who instinctively know "the right thing to do" in a crisis. Their sense of personal responsibility, of right and wrong, of courage and compassion doesn't desert them in an emergency. In fact, it may only be during an unexpected emergency that they themselves realize for the first time that they "get it." They act first and ask questions later -- fortunately for those they can help.  

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, or they might throw them upon the manure pile. Do not throw pearls [to] swine, or they might make [mud] of it” (Gospel of Thomas 93). Jesus taught several centuries before either Augustine or Pelagius, so of course we don’t expect to see any reference to these later theologians in the Gospel of Thomas. On the other hand, Jesus had unflattering things to say about both the Pharisees and the Herodians, whose teachings resembled those of Augustine and Pelagius respectively. It seems likely that in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus was using the metaphor of “dogs” to refer to the Pharisees and the metaphor of “swine” to refer to the Herodians. It seems Jesus wasn’t impressed with either group’s approach to God’s holy things. Recently, I visited a Toronto Conservatory where several generations of cardinals have learned to enter and exit through the automated roof openings so they can build nests for their young in a warm, safe place. These birds not only provide basic food and shelter for their offspring, but also, in this case, are teaching their young an unusual and complex skill set that calls upon them to maximize their latent potential without exceeding their limits. In other words, the parent cardinals are mentoring their offspring. Photo credit JAT 2017.

A: You're saying that maturity -- personal responsibility -- is the product of many years of education and mentorship of children. Is that right? 

J: Yes. Education is the first "gear" in the process, but education alone isn't enough to guide a child towards maturity and personal responsibility.  

A: As the well-educated youths who rioted in Vancouver proved all too well.

J: Along with education there must also be appropriate, mature mentorship. It's the older mentors who are supposed to guide children in their emotional growth with firm, consistent, boundary-respecting compassionate tough love. Parents, grandparents, teachers, sports coaches, medical professionals, and many others can all be mentors for children if they so choose.  

A: What about ministers and priests? Can they be mentors?  

J: Ideally, yes. However, realistically speaking, they rarely are.  

A: Why not?  

J: Because most of them have deeply embraced either Augustine's idea about human nature or Pelagius's idea. Neither approach helps a young person learn how to find the balance they so desperately need. In addition, those ministers who try to inject balance into their youth work are also the ones most likely to have rejected the idea of the soul and the spiritual life. It's lose-lose for ordained clerics.  

A: Unless they're willing to accept new doctrines of faith.  

J: For that to happen, they'd have to apply their own God-given free will. It's a choice each cleric will have to make on the basis of his or her own conscience. That's what divine courage is all about.

JR51: Fifth Step: Keep Christmas, Toss Easter

A: So far we've talked about rescuing the soul, restoring the mystery of divine love, inviting our Mother to the table, and insisting on balance as four ways to help heal the church. What else do you have in that angelic bag of surprises you carry around?  

Christmas tree. Photo credit JAT 2012.

J: The liturgical calendar of the Church must be changed.  

A: You mean the calendar of religious events and themes and holy days that tells people what they're supposed to be celebrating when.  

J: Calendars are very important to the healthy functioning of the brain. So the Church still needs a calendar to help focus events for the year. I'm not recommending that the Church do away entirely with the idea of having a yearly cycle of events. Far from it. I'm suggesting that the Church revise the calendar and bring it into alignment with the needs of the soul.  

A: What would that mean in practical terms? 

J: It would mean you'd get to keep Christmas but you'd have to put Easter in the garbage bin.

A: Get rid of Easter? I can see the steam coming off the heads of conservative Christians already.  

J: It would be kinder, in the eyes of many Christians, for me to suggest that Holy Week be "reformed" rather than axed altogether. But Holy Week is a celebration of Pauline Christianity at its worst. The overriding theme of Holy Week is salvation -- escape -- not healing or redemption. Every year it sends the wrong message to Christians. It sends the message that the focus of their relationship with God should be the Saviour -- his death and resurrection and coming again. This was never the message I taught during my ministry as Jesus. Nor is the meaning of my time on the cross being properly taught and represented by the Church. There's no way that Holy Week can be fixed. It would be the same as asking people to celebrate "the joy" of an S.S. death camp like Auschwitz. (I say this as facetiously as possible.) There is no joy to be found in the traditional teachings of Holy Week. 

A: I've noticed a tendency among more liberal ministers to treat the "events" of Holy Week in a more symbolic way -- to de-emphasize the crucifixion and instead emphasize the themes of renewal and rebirth and regrowth in the spring.  

J: It's very helpful and hopeful to talk about the themes of renewal and rebirth. I have no problem with that per se. I have a problem with a continuing effort among theologians to attach those themes to me. I am one man, one angel, one child of God. I'm not the Fisher King. I'm not Horus. I'm not the dead and rising Sol Invictus. I'm not the resurrected Christ. I'm just a stubborn s.o.b. who won't shut up. I wasn't even crucified in the springtime. I was crucified in the fall. The early church's efforts to place the time of my crucifixion in the spring were largely centred on John's writings. John had his own reasons for wanting to place the time of my crucifixion at Passover. But John wasn't a man who cared about historicity or facts. He wrote what he wanted to write about me. It helped him sleep better at night.  

A: A minute ago you mentioned joy as if it's somehow significant or important to the healing of the church.  

J: Joy is crucial to the experience of faith.  

A: How do you define "joy"?  

J: I use the word "joy" to express the gratitude and devotion and trust that all angels feel in their relationship with God the Mother and God the Father. I don't use it as a synonym for worship or praise. I don't use it as a synonym for the excitement of being part of a large crowd (which is more like hysteria). For me, joy is a word that conveys the happiness and deep contentment we feel as angels. It's the feeling you get when you feel really, really grateful and really, really SAFE at the same time. It makes you smile from the inside out. 

A: Christians have long believed that the purpose of angels is to offer praise and worship to God. Do angels worship God?  

J: Noooooooo. You never see angels down on their knees with their heads bowed in humility. What you see is angels living their purpose of love in everything they do. As angels, we show our never-ending love and appreciation of our parents by choosing thoughts and words and actions that bring more love into Creation. We live in imitation of our parents' courage. We're not carbon copies of our divine mother and father -- that is, we all have our own unique temperaments and personalities and talents and interests -- but we're all alike in that we all choose love. There are many different minds and many different bodies in Creation, but it can be said in all truthfulness that there's only One Heart. It's the feeling of joy that comes from our choice to share One Heart that makes us feel like a big family. We all belong to one family.   

A: Where you feel safe, despite your differences in talent and temperament.  

J: Yes. This is the underlying intent of divine love. It's the choice to see another soul as, in fact, another soul -- as someone who's not you, who's not a mere extension of you. It's the choice to respect differences between individual souls, while at the same time choosing to help other souls be their best selves.  

A: Can you explain what you mean by that last statement?  

J: Here's the thing. No one soul can "do" all things or "be" all things. Every soul has unique strengths. But every soul also has unique absences of strength. Angels are always giving and receiving help within the family. An angel with a particular strength will offer that strength to help brothers and sisters who need assistance with something they're not very good at themselves. The same angel who offers a strength to another will in turn be very grateful to receive help from another soul in an area where he or she needs some help. There's no sense of shame or guilt or inadequacy among angels when they have an absence of strength. They accept who they are. They don't judge themselves or feel sorry for themselves or describe themselves as flawed or imperfect or unworthy. They gratefully and humbly ask for -- and receive -- help when there's something they don't understand or something they want to do but don't have the skills for. It's all about education, mentorship, and personal responsibility, even among God's angels. As above, so below.  

A: At the start of this conversation you said that Christians could keep the celebration of Christmas. Why? Why keep Christmas and not Easter? 

J: December 25th is a day marked by all angels in Creation. It is the day when Divine Love was born. 

 A: I thought you said we have to get rid of all the invented myths about your ministry. Isn't this one of them?  

J: I wasn't born on December 25th. I was born in the month of November. When I refer to the day when Divine Love was born, I'm talking about God the Mother and God the Father. I'm talking about the day when their Divine Love for each other first emerged in Creation. It was the day when everything -- absolutely everything -- changed. It was the day -- the actual day in the far, far distant past (before the time of the "Big Bang") -- when they made the choice to live for each other. It's the day when the Christ was born -- NOT, I'd like to reiterate, the day when I, Jesus, was born, but the day when Mother-and-Father-Together-As-Christ were born. When their new reality was born. When their new relationship was born. None of us would be here today if they hadn't made that choice.  

A: So you're saying that God the Mother and God the Father have an actual calendar of the kind we would recognize here on Planet Earth, and that the day of December 25th is marked on this calendar? This seems like too much of a coincidence. 

J: God isn't using a human calendar. Humans are using a divine calendar. God the Mother and God the Father are pretty good at math, you could say. It wasn't difficult for them to set up indications of their calendar system all over the known baryonic universe. Planet Earth runs on the same calendar system that angels use. More or less. There are cycles that can't be argued with, cycles that are fixed by astronomical and mathematical realities. Solar and lunar and galactic cycles dictate the calendar, not the other way around. Humans didn't "invent" this calendar. They simply noted its existence.  

A: Ah. The Preexistent Calendar. I'd love to see what the theologians will do with this theory!  

J: The cycles are real and meaningful to all souls. The Church liturgical calendar needs to honour and respect these cycles. Obviously there can't be too many "fixed liturgical days" because there has to be room for change in patterns depending on latitude and longitude. The time of regeneration, rebirth, and regrowth changes depending on where you live. The Church has to make allowances for these scientific realities.  

A: Any other suggestions?  

J: Yes. The Church should get rid of Holy Week entirely, including all the bells and whistles such as Lent. In its place, they should institute at a different time of year a brand new 3-day Festival of Redemption. Like Christmas, it would be a "fixed" celebration, celebrated by all Christians at the same time each year. 

A: This is an entirely new idea. What would the purpose be?  

J: The Festival of Redemption would be a time for Christians to stop their busy everyday lives and get together for workshops, seminars, and conferences on the theme of helping each other heal. Workshops could be held locally in the homes of individuals. Or they could be held in larger venues, such as university campuses. Not everyone would want to experience this festival in the same way -- and this is as it should be because souls have different needs and different learning styles. In fact, there should NOT be one particular fixed geographical location or "pilgrimage" site for this Festival. Having "special sites" would undermine the purpose of the Festival. The idea that only some sites are "sacred" or "specially blessed by God" is a human idea. Every square inch of Creation is sacred and blessed by God as far as the angels are concerned.  

A: Something tells me the Biblical idea of specific sites sanctified by God is another idea that's going to be going into the garbage can along with the Easter eggs.  

J: Hey. Don't throw out the chocolate bunnies. They're one of the only parts of Easter worth keeping. That and the big family dinners. 

A: Amen to that.

JR50: Fourth Step: Insist on Balance

A: In the past couple of weeks we've been talking about ways to help heal the church. What other suggestions do you have for Christians who want to live a life of faith without compromising their logic or their ethic of inclusiveness?
 
J: I'd definitely say the Church needs to teach holistic balance. They need to teach people on an ongoing basis how to balance the mind, body, heart, and soul.
 
A: This is a topic that could fill many, many books.
 
J: All the better. As I've said before, the path to peace begins with education, not with piety and not with covenant.* The Church needs to expand the source material it relies on to teach its new insights. The Bible by itself won't cut it. Not even the parts of the Bible that teach the truth about God the Mother, God the Father, and me. You can only read from the Gospel of Mark so many times. You need some other source material to work with.
 
A: Can you give some examples?
 

“Jesus said: Blessed are those who have been persecuted within themselves. They have really come to know the Father” (Gospel of Thomas 69a). Think of your life as a series of braids. You can see the individual strands of heart, mind, body, and soul, but when you do your best to weave them together with self-honesty (“persecution within themselves”), you have a braid that’s many times stronger than the strands could be by themselves. Photo credit Image*After.

 

J: Actually, a lot of open-minded ministers are already including other source materials in their services. They're using poetry, music, dance, art, drama, and spontaneous prayer to expand the scope of their services -- to let the experience breathe. There still needs to be some structure to the service -- it isn't healthy, especially for younger children, if ministers do away entirely with a recognizable format -- but these other "languages" are valid ways for people to connect with God's voice. The important thing here is to be conscious of the content and -- most importantly -- the intent of the other source materials that are being chosen. The intent is what matters. There's no point filling a service with new songs and new poems if the new material tells people the same thing they've been told for centuries -- that they're unworthy of God's forgiveness and love and guidance. The new material must encourage people to think in positive ways about themselves and their relationship with God.

A: While not overdoing the whole self-esteem thing.

J: Yes. It's not helpful for a service to slide in the direction of Prosperity Gospel teachings. Prosperity preachers are no more balanced than fire-and-brimstone preachers. Prosperity Gospel teaches various versions of the "God-As-the-Great-Gumball-Machine-in-the-Sky" doctrine -- various versions of the "God has to give you whatever want if you ask in the right way" theory.** These teachings feed -- and feed upon -- people's undiagnosed status addiction. It's not a healthy way to be in relationship with God. A healthy relationship with God involves a balance between your own needs and other people's needs, a balance between encouraging people to be their best selves and encouraging them to take responsibility for harmful choices they've made on purpose. The Church's job is to help people recognize and maintain this balance.
 
A: So you don't recommend that ministers get rid of the Prayer of Confession in their services?
 
J: The Prayer of Confession is a crucial part of helping people recognize the balance. Of course, the Prayer of Confession needs to be written with the utmost care. It needs to strike the proper balance between encouraging people to be honest about their intentional errors while at the same time leaving room for them to feel optimistic about their ability to learn from their mistakes and to feel God's forgiveness.
 
A: I remember with excruciating clarity the penitential prayer (or "preface" prayer) from the 1962 Anglican Book of Common Prayer. The Communion Service prepared us for the sacrament of the Eucharist by having us all recite in unison, "We do not presume to come to this thy table, O Merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table [emphasis added]. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen." This prayer always made me feel like crap. The line about not being worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under the table stuck in my head, too, as I'm sure the authors of the prayer intended. In the Anglican Church's newest prayer book for Canada -- The Book of Alternative Services -- this prayer has ostensibly been removed from the new Holy Communion service. But the intent is still there.
 
J: This is exactly the sort of prayer that's harmful to people's relationship with God rather than helpful.
 
A: I think many church leaders and church elders and even some Christian parents are afraid that if faithful Christians aren't forced onto their knees in fear and obedience then mass chaos will erupt in our society, and civilization will fall apart.
 
J: Yes. Many church elders do believe this. They believe this because they've been told to believe this by authority figures in their lives -- whether parents, ministers, theologians, saints, or scripture. They're genuinely frightened. They believe they're doing the right thing in promoting this kind of fear in people's relationship with God.
 
A: What's your suggestion for healing this problem in the Church?
 
J: Ministers and church elders must look to the second step of the Peace Sequence for guidance. The Peace Sequence I taught was education-then-mentorship-then-personal-responsibility-then-peace. Those called to the task of ministering to the spiritual aspect of humanity must first be educated. Then they must accept the mantle of mentorship. They must stop trying to "save souls" and instead start trying to "mentor brains." A minister in the third millennium must be a bit of a jack-or-jill-of-all-trades -- knowledgeable about the history of the church and the history of church doctrine, but also aware of trends in science, psychotherapy, the arts, and politics. An effective minister isn't somebody who's hiding his or her head in the sand like an ostrich. An effective minister isn't somebody who preaches "escape from the sins and evils of the world." Instead, an effective minister is someone who isn't afraid to look at Creation in holistic ways, balanced ways, and wonder-filled ways. An effective minister is someone who teaches people how to live as a human being according to the needs and wishes of the soul.
 
A: The good soul.
 
J: Yes. The good soul that everyone is.
 
A: I suspect that most people in the world today wouldn't even know how to begin to imagine what Church would look like if it operated in this way.
 
J: Well, for starters, the Church would be a place that's integrated into the wider community. This idea isn't really new. Many heart-based Christians have tried to take the church into the community and the community into the church. This is admirable. The great stumbling block to progress in this endeavour has always been the doctrines. It's the doctrines themselves -- and the intent behind those doctrines -- that drive a wedge between the church and the community. You can't go around preaching that you're chosen by God to be saved and not have people notice how hypocritical your claims of love and forgiveness really are.
 
People these days have access to information -- lots and lots of information. They find out pretty quickly when pastors and priests have been charged with crimes against their neighbours. It looks hypocritical. And, indeed, it is.
 
A: I spent two years in full-time studies with theology students, most of whom planned to go on for ordination. Even among United Church candidates, there's a belief that ministers-in-training are there because they've been "called." I have no problem in general with the idea of people feeling called to particular tasks in life. But this was different. These ministers-in-training seemed to believe that their call was somehow "more special" than other people's calls. They didn't see their job as just another job on a par with teaching or medical care or firefighting or environmental cleanup. They thought they were somehow "different." I also noticed that a few of these ministers-in-training got a strange light in their eye when they talked about their special -- and highly controlled -- right to bless the bread and wine of the Eucharist. It was not a pretty sight. It was clear some of them wanted the status of being "specially chosen by God" to bless the Elements, and maybe even facilitate their Transubstantiation into something more elevated. 

J: Well, as for that, there's no transubstantiation -- no transformation of the "inner reality" of the bread and wine. There's mystery and wonder in every stick of bread that's baked in the world, and the Church's bread is no better. Unfortunately, there are too many priests and too many ministers who want the Church's bread to be better so they themselves can claim to be a unique and indispensable part of bringing the bread of God to the people of God. This is not mentorship. This is exactly what it sounds like -- narcissism.
 
A: So part of the journey of healing the church is to heal what it means to be a minister.
 
J: Yes. The minister himself or herself must first understand what it means to live a life of balance -- a life in which the needs of mind, body, heart, and soul are recognized for what they are.
 
It should go without saying that a religious acolyte who intentionally chooses a life of imbalance -- who intentionally chooses a life of asceticism and celibacy and seclusion and obsessive forms of daily worship -- is not ever going to be "simpatico" with his own soul. And he's never going to be equipped to guide others. He's never going to have the personal tools necessary to become a spiritual mentor to others. He who preaches the importance of balance but doesn't live according to the needs of balance is a hypocrite.
 
A: As I recall, this was one of your favourite themes 2,000 years ago.
 
J: Hypocrisy and narcissistic intent are incestuous bedmates in the history of orthodox Western Christianity. Where you find one, you always find the other.
 

* See http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/05/peace-sequence.html
** See also http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/ya-gotta-love-those-kevin-trudeau.html

JR49: Third Step: Invite Our Mother to the Table

A: Last time we spoke, the idea of the "scandal of particularity" sort of popped onto the page. I've been thinking about it for the past few days, and I'd like to return to that idea if it's okay with you. 

J: Fine by me.  

A: You said -- and I quote -- "There IS a 'scandal of particularity,' but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me." Can you elaborate on this?  

J: Orthodox Western Christianity -- the religious structure built on the teachings of Paul and Paul's orthodox successors -- has worked very hard in the last few centuries to "reposition" me, Jesus son of Joseph, in the marketplace of world opinion. Many critics of Christianity have pointed out how damaging and abusive it is to claim that God "became" one particular man in one particular place at one particular point in time. No end of systemic abuse has been voluntarily created by Church representatives because of this claim. Claims about me have been used to justify maltreatment of women, violence against Jews, and attacks on the "inferiority" of all other religious traditions. 

Christians who think that I, Jesus, am happy about their claims should check out the current song by Christina Perri called "Jar of Hearts."* "Jar of Hearts" is a song about a person who has finally figured out how abusive her former partner is. "Who do you think you are?" she asks with no holds barred, "running' 'round leaving scars, collecting your jar of hearts, and tearing love apart." This song reflects quite accurately how I feel about "Mother Church." I want no part of the traditional teachings about Jesus the Saviour. If they want to keep their Saviour, they'll have to find a new candidate, because this particular angel has resigned. Quit. Left the building. I'm tired of being their whipping boy.  

A: Not quite the answer I was expecting.  

J: People think that angels have no feelings. Well, I have plenty of feelings about the way the Church has abused me and those I love. I forgive individual church leaders -- those who have perpetrated great harm in the name of God and Jesus -- but I feel the pain intensely. Forgiveness isn't the same thing as sweeping great harms under the carpet. Forgiveness is first and foremost a state of honesty -- honesty about the intent and the injury inflicted by the intent. The intent of the Church's teachings about me (Jesus) and about sin, separation from God, sacraments, and salvation is selfish and narcissistic. These teachings promote physiological addiction disorders. They harm lives. They harm relationships. They harm the understanding of humanity's role in Creation. I do not respect these teachings, and I do not support the right of the Church to teach abusive spirituality to desperate people. Abuse is abuse. Western society as a whole no longer supports or condones spousal abuse or child abuse or corporate abuse. Yet Western society continues to condone spiritual abuse. This must stop.  

A: Many Christians have noticed the problem of abuse in the Church and have decided to walk away from the Church. They don't see how it can be fixed.  

J: People want and need to be in relationship with God. They need faith in their lives. Unfortunately, the Church has taken terrible advantage of this need. 

A: I haven't seen much willingness among Christians I know to ask tough questions about Church doctrine. They're trying to change the window dressings while the basement foundation is full of rot. No wonder people are leaving the mainstream churches in droves! At least in Canada they are. Can't comment on the experience in other countries.  

J: In Canada there's such a widespread ethos of inclusiveness, access to public health services and public schooling, government accountability, gender equality, and prevention of child abuse that individual Canadians aren't seeing their day-to-day ethos reflected in the core teachings of the orthodox Church.  

A: Because it's not there. The words are there, but not the underlying ethos.  

J: No. The ethos isn't there. The Church can talk till it's blue in the face about the importance of service work and mission, but regular people can still sense there's "something wrong with the picture." They can sense there's rot in the foundations. And they don't want to be a part of that. Some of them decide to leave the church. Others stay and do their best to try to fix it from within. But there's mass confusion. And people are starving -- literally starving -- for a faith experience that makes sense to them at the deepest possible level of the heart.  

“A woman in the crowd said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that fed you. He said to her: Blessed are they who have heard the word of the Father and have truly kept it. For there will be days when you will say, ‘Blessed is the womb that has not conceived and the breasts that have not given milk'” (Gospel of Thomas 79 a-b). The Gospel of Thomas follows a minority voice in Judaism that speaks of women in a positive light and shows them as being equal to men in God’s community (rather than inferior knock-offs). This particular saying in Thomas goes even further and talks about God the Mother as one who shouldn’t be understood in terms of ordinary human motherhood. As Co-Creator of everything in the universe, our blessed Divine Mother is beyond our simple conceptions of what it means to be a mother. When compared to Hellenistic cult images of the Divine Mother (for example, the multi-breasted Artemis figure from Ephesus), it’s easy to see why Jesus faced an uphill battle in changing people’s perception of God. Photo credit Image*After.

A: For 2,000 years now we've been saddled with a religion that absolutely insists in no uncertain terms how ludicrous it is to even consider the remote possibility that possibly -- just possibly -- God might not be a "he" but might instead be a "he and a she." It's okay, of course, for us to bust our brains on the question of the Trinity and all the other "mysteries" that go with traditional Christianity. But it's not okay for us to suppose that God is two people united forever in divine marriage with each other.** 

J: Such a portrayal of God brings with it all sorts of implications the Church doesn't want to deal with. For one thing, they'd have to explain why and how they "kidnapped" our Divine Mother, why they eradicated her from the message. They'd have to explain -- at least in the Roman Catholic Church -- why they allowed a cult to flourish around the fictional character of Mary, Mother of God. 

A: You did have a mother. And her name was Miriam.  

J: Yes. But she was no more the Mother of God than I was God incarnate. She was a normal human mother. That's it.  

A: Two flesh and blood people -- you and your human mother -- who've been turned into myths, lies, and symbols. 

J: Meanwhile, there's a very real and very particular Mother in Creation. God the Mother. This is the scandal of particularity I was referring to -- the scandal of God the Mother and God the Father being two particular, definable, real, knowable people. Real people who have existed and continue to exist in real time and real space and real history. Real people who refuse to be moulded by the grandiose lies made by assorted religious mystics over the centuries. Real people who belong to each other -- not to their children -- in marital love. Real people who are our PARENTS. Real people who get hurt when their dysfunctional human children try to cross the boundaries of safety and trust between parents and children by engaging in occult practices -- especially occult sexual practices.  

A: Mystics have often described their "union with God" as a mystical marriage, with God as the bridegroom and the mystic or the church as the bride.  

J: Yeah. And for the record, that's another doctrine that's gotta go. It's highly dysfunctional and abusive for children to want to have sex with their own parents. This should go without saying. But for too long the Church has condoned mystical practices that lead in this direction. 

A: Who can forget Bernini's sculpture of St. Teresa of Avila with her mouth agape and her toes curled in orgasmic ecstasy?  

J: Here's a thought. Maybe we should butt out of the personal relationship between God the Mother and God the Father -- their private life -- and get on with the important job of being their children. For starters, human beings of faith could be nice to our Mother for a change. You know, talk to her. Include her. Invite her to the table of faith. Look to her for guidance and inspiration. Say thank you to her. Look her in the eye and say, "Thank you for loving me."  

A: It's amazing how effective the Church's strategy has been. They've managed to put blinders on people's eyes so they literally can't see God the Mother. She's the Invisible Woman in Western theology. She's standing right in front of us, waving her arms and jumping up and down, and people of faith still don't see her.  

J: If that isn't gender abuse, I don't know what is. 

 

* "Jar of Hearts" was written by Drew C. Lawrence, Christina J. Perri, and Barrett N. Yeretsian. 

** See also http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/02/divine-love-story.html and http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-my-experience-as-chemist-has.html

JR48: Second Step in Healing the Church: Restore the Mystery of Divine Love

A: I was rearranging a couple of my bookshelves yesterday -- actually, I was tidying up because my parents are coming over -- and I felt drawn to set aside a book I picked up last fall in the remaindered book section at Chapters. It's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Christian Mysteries by Ron Benrey (New York: Alpha-Penguin, 2008). It's not a bad little book. And it sure beats trying to wade through Jaroslav Pelikan's massive 5 volume history of church doctrine.  

Anyway, Benrey's book is divided into 4 parts and a total of 24 chapters. Part 1 is called "The Christian Mindbenders." The 6 mysteries included in Part I are "the mystery of the incarnation," "the mystery of the trinity," "the mystery of Jesus' dual natures," "the mystery of Jesus' resurrection," "the mystery of the atonement," and "the mystery of the last things." A few days ago, you said there's not enough mystery in the church.* Yet Bender has filled a whole book with Christian mysteries of various sorts -- most of which you've trashed in your discussions with me. So I'm wondering if we can return to the question of mystery in the church today. How do you envision the role of mystery in healing the church?  

J: First, it's important for church leaders to accept that people want and need mystery. If you strip away the mystery, all you really have is a secular service club devoted to charitable causes. That's not faith. Faith and mystery go hand in hand. 

“Jesus said: Images are visible to people, but the love within them is hidden in the image of the Father’s love. He will be revealed but his image is hidden by his love” (Gospel of Thomas 83). Standard translations of this saying use the word “light” where I’ve used the word “love.” But for Jesus, Divine Love — rather than hidden knowledge — was the great light that shines upon us all. There was no word in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic that adequately captured this concept of love, so he sometimes used the Greek word φως (phos) to try to capture the intensity and sense of life in God’s love. Strange as it may sound, mystery, and love are always associated with a sense of movement, beauty, grace, and transformation. Photo credit Image*After.

A: Why?  

J: Because faith -- as opposed to piety or fear of God -- is about relationship with God. And as soon as you start talking about relationships, you start entering the realm of mystery. 

A: That feeling of awe about somebody else's gifts and gaffes -- their amazing courage, their brilliant insights, their hilarious mistakes.  

J: Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is consciousness -- what it means to be a person. This mystery extends to the origins of our divine Mother and Father. God the Mother and God the Father are distinct consciousnesses -- two distinct people -- with vastly different talents and abilities, yet they share their journey together in the deepest love and trust and gratitude. What they create together is so much bigger than what either could create alone. There's an immense sense of wonder on the part of all angels at the richness and kindness and patience that's infused in everything our Mother and Father create together. The creations themselves are cause for much appreciation and emulation. But it's not the creations themselves (stars, moons, planets) that convey to us -- their angelic children -- the deepest sense of divine mystery. It's the love itself. The deepest mystery -- the startling mystery, the core mystery, the infinite puzzle -- is the mystery of divine love. And this is a mystery based on relationship.  

A: Some Christian theologians like to talk about the "scandal of particularity." In Christian terms, it's related to the doctrine of the incarnation -- the idea that God entered one particular, limited existence. Namely you. It's interesting that what you're describing as the mystery of divine love sounds nothing like the Christian doctrine of the incarnation, yet it sounds an awful lot like the scandal of particularity -- though not at first. You have to ponder the feeling for a while to notice the connection . . . which reminds me that I've noticed over the years that some of the doctrines Christians cling to so desperately contain an echo or a hint of something true. The doctrines have become all twisted around and knotted so we can't see the original truth anymore. But at the same time we don't want to let them go because we sense there's something important there.  

J: You've really nailed that. There IS a "scandal of particularity," but it applies to God the Mother and God the Father, not to me.  

A: I've been hanging around with you for too long.  

J: The same thing applies to the idea of the Christ archetype. I was not -- and am not --THE Christ. The original Christ archetype is held by God the Mother and God the Father TOGETHER. I seek to emulate their courage, their love, their devotion as an angel, as a child of God, and in so far as I choose to emulate their example, I am a "small-c" christ. But when angels think of Christ, we think of our divine parents. We think of God. It's a term of affection. And gratitude. It's a positive epithet. But Paul and his successors took this term of affection and turned it into a word that means power and control and hierarchy. They mutated and subverted the meaning of everything that God the Mother and God the Father stand for together as the Christ.  

Sure, there really is a Christ. And sure, regular Christians don't want to let go of the idea that there's a Christ. But they're pinning the tail on the wrong donkey. I'm not the Christ. I'm a child of Christ -- as, indeed, are all souls in Creation.  

A: When we started talking about the "scandal of particularity" a few minutes ago, I got my butt off my chair and retrieved another book -- this one called Constructive Theology: A Contemporary Approach to Classical Themes, edited by Serene Jones and Paul Lakeland (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). In it there's an article called "God With Us in the Dust" by Karen Baker-Fletcher (pages 188-190). Baker-Fletcher says this:  

"What, then, is the difference between Jesus and other humans? It is not that we are like Jesus in the suffering we humans endure. It is the other way around; Jesus is like us, relates to us, identifies with us, having experienced the violent consequences of human sin. Jesus is like us because Jesus has been sinned against. He therefore can identify with human suffering. Jesus is like us because Jesus also feasts and rejoices with us. But we are not Christs [emphasis added]. Jesus does not sin but is sinned against. Jesus is unlike us because he is the Christ, the anointed one, one with God. God alone in Christ can promise restoration, redemption, salvation. As human beings we may participate in this activity, but we do not initiate it (page 189)." How do you respond to these thoughts?  

J: Well, she's managed rather neatly to allude to the Christian mysteries of the incarnation, the trinity, Jesus' dual natures, Jesus' resurrection, the atonement, and the last things all in one paragraph. She gets points for brevity. But she gets no points for understanding my ministry or my true relationship with God.  

A: You've said in the past that all human beings have the potential to live as Christs-in-human-form.  

J: Yes. It's a question of living your human life in imitation of Christ -- not as Paul taught the Christ, but as I and others have taught the Christ. Since I am not the Christ, there's no point living your life in imitation of me. On the other hand, since God the Mother and God the Father ARE the Christ, it's a pretty good bet that if you live your life in imitation of their love -- their courage, their devotion, their gratitude, their trust -- you're going to be "in the zone."  

A: In the Christ Zone, as you've called it before.  

J: Yes. I've called it the Christ Zone for a modern audience but 2,000 years ago I called it . . .  

A: The Kingdom of the Heavens.  

J: Same thing, different name. It's not the name that matters, after all. It's the intent. Paul's intent -- his choice of ground on which to sow the seeds of human potential -- was barren and rocky because he didn't actually want people to understand their potential to initiate the activities of healing, forgiveness, and redemption. He wanted them to feel helpless and hopeless about themselves so they would turn first and foremost to church leaders (such as himself) for authority and guidance.  

A: And you?  

J: I wanted people to feel helpful and hopeful about themselves so they would turn to God the Mother and God the Father for direct guidance.  

A: How very Protestant of you. 

* http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/06/first-step-in-healing-church-rescue.html

JR47: "Knowledge" Versus "Truth"

A: Tell me how you would explain the difference between "knowledge" and "truth." There seem to be a lot of different theories floating around. 

J: Here's one of the problems with relying too heavily on words. One person's "knowledge" is another person's "truth." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "wisdom." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "fact." Words can be very messy, very sloppy. It's important for individuals to be clear about their use of abstract words like these.  

A: Okay. How do you, as a soul-in-angel-form and speaker of the English language, use the word "knowledge"?  

J: I use the word "knowledge" to mean an accumulation of facts. Lots of raw facts. These facts may or may not be connected to each other. But there are lots of them. Lots of different facts that can be accessed from memory or from sources such as books or computers to answer specific questions of fact. 

A: Like the question and answer pairs on Jeopardy. 

J: Exactly. These question and answer pairs rely on logic and reason. But there's usually little emotional content. And there's no need for "insight" or "understanding" or "truth." The facts speak for themselves. Of course, as human Jeopardy contenders recently discovered, a honkin' big computer can access raw facts -- "knowledge" -- faster than most human brains can.

 

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear(respect) the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be a healing for your flesh and a refreshment for your body" (Proverbs 3:5-8). If you really want to heal your relationship with God, try humbly accepting you probably have a lot of old beliefs that are messing up the way your brain works. Certain beliefs about God can "freeze up" your neural networks and prevent your brain from being able to process Divine guidance. Without easy access to your Divine guidance, you're limited to the ideas inside your own brain. And let's face it, some of those ideas are probably pretty stupid (like Young Earth Creationism). The Truth about you and God (a wonderful Truth!) is already deep within you, but first you have to melt the ice that's keeping you from feeling your Soul pathways. Photo credit JAT 2022.

J (Cont): Having said that, I want to make it clear that I'm not dissing the importance of "knowledge." It's important to be able to remember and access facts. Facts give information about things that are already known, already certain -- things that are "a done deal." Facts help ground the learning process. In fact, learning can't take place at all in the absence of facts. This is true even in fields such as philosophy and theology. The universe isn't reinventing itself every few seconds like some big relativistic, existential "symbol" in the sky (as some religious philosophers would have you believe). There are fixed facts, fixed historical realities that guide all choices made by God and God's angels. The universe has a history -- a factual history -- that can't be changed. The universe's past has a measurable effect on its present. The past matters. And the past is fact -- not fiction. The past can't be altered. Time is linear. Even for God.  

A: This will come as a great disappointment to fans of time travel stories. And to theologians who insist that All Time has been known to God since the very beginning. God's foreknowledge of all that will happen in the future is the basis of Christian "predestination" -- the doctrine that says God already knows ahead of time who will be saved in the End Times.  

J: Another example of old lies begetting new lies, as you put it. The first lie, of course, was the lie that souls desperately need to be saved from hell and judgment and damnation. But souls don't need to be saved. Why would God create billions of defective souls that need to be saved by . . . televangelists? Salvation-of-the-soul is a goofy idea from start to finish. 

A: But a very profitable one.

J: It's an interesting fact of neurophysiology that certain forms of serious psychological dysfunction in human beings are accompanied by damage to the parietal lobes of the brain -- parts of the brain which are crucial to a person's ability to relate to time and space. When the volume of the parietal lobes is reduced, and when the density of glial cells is diminished in the parietal-temporal regions, an individual will experience problems understanding boundaries (i.e. his or her location in space) and problems with empathy (i.e his or her location in both time and space -- also called boundary issues). These are the individuals who can't learn from their own mistakes, who can't empathize with other people's feelings, who constantly invade other people's "time and space."  

A: The narcissists. 

J: Yes. A narcissist is someone who's become inwardly focussed to the point of selfishness and self-absorption because he or she has no "brain health" in the areas of time and space -- no ability to accurately identify the factual boundaries that surround each soul. She literally can't see where she ends and another person begins. She can't see that she's a separate entity -- a separate consciousness -- from her neighbour. The boundaries between her and her neighbour exist and are real and are factual. But she can't see them. It's all blurry to her. The boundaries exist, but she behaves as if they don't exist. She behaves as if she and her neighbour "are all one," as if the neighbour is merely an extension of her own core consciousness. The neighbour, of course, is expected to "behave" -- to obey her needs and wishes without question and to reinforce her image of herself as a wonderful person. There's a perfect analogy for this mindset in the realm of science fiction: Star Trek's hive queen of the Borg.  

A: See, I knew there was good reason for me to be watching the Space Channel.  

J: The great thing about the way the Borg Queen character is written is her calm, serene, elevated disposition. She believes her own propaganda about making life better for all the individuals she incorporates into her collective. She goes around telling everyone "we're all one, we're all equal." But what she actually means is, "I'm the only one who really exists, and all you drones are merely inferior beings who were put here to serve me" . . . which brings us to the question of "truth." 

A: The way you've just described the Borg Queen reminds me -- none too pleasantly -- of the modern apocalyptic prophet I spent too much time with a few years ago: Grace. She was always speaking "the truth" that "we're all one, we're all equal." She had the same calm, serene detachment as the Borg Queen. It gave her such an air of believability -- even wisdom. She seemed to have let go of all her worries about the past. Very appealing to somebody like me who was dogged by feelings of guilt and shame.  

She seemed so believable -- until you challenged her. When you challenged Grace's superiority, her infallibility, it was like a switch went off in her brain. She switched instantly from calm, affable charm to vicious, vengeful violence. The smallest thing could set her off. I still remember the murderous look in her eye one day when I told her that she herself had caused an electrical short in a lighting fixture by twisting the fan/light combo while it was still attached on one side to the ceiling. I could see that she wanted to throw me down the stairs because I'd pointed out her obvious error. The mistake was entirely hers. But she didn't want to hear about it. She couldn't handle responsibility for her own mistakes.  

J: Good example -- though painful. Grace was a person with significant impairment of her biological brain function, as you know. She was able to process "knowledge" -- facts -- well enough to function in society. She could remember that gas needed to be put in the car, that food had to be bought and prepared. But as for "truth" . . . "truth" was beyond her capacity to grasp because of damage to her biological brain from early, unhealed, profound childhood abuse. Physical, emotional, sexual, and psychological abuse. As a result of the abuse, and the biological damage caused by it, Grace couldn't read "intent." She couldn't understand or be honest about her own inner intent. Her intent was to prove to other people that she was better than they were. That's the honest truth. The truth is that everything Grace did -- all her choices -- were shaped by her narcissistic intent. Her words about "oneness" and "equality" meant nothing because her actual intent said something different.  

A: So you're drawing a strong link between "intent" and "truth."  

J: Very much so. Facts by themselves are not "truth," though "truth" is not "truth" without a foundation of facts. Truth -- as I'm defining it -- is an observation or insight about the way in which seemingly random facts are linked together by underlying strands of intent. The intent is like the subfloor of the factual foundation. The facts lie on top of the intent. The truth builds on both the intent and the facts. For something to be "true" in a philosophical way, it must objectively assess both a collection of facts AND the underlying intent underneath those facts.

A: Are you saying that a person's "intent" and his/her "starting assumptions" are the same thing? 

J (shaking his head): No. A person's inner intent is more like his inner "purpose" or "goal." Your intent speaks to the principle of time -- where you were in the past, where you are now, and where you want to go. It's more like conscious motivation. It's the motivation that gets you out of bed in the morning and keeps you going, even when things aren't going well. 

A: So it's teleology? 

J: Again, no. Teleology implies there's a finite, definable end goal or a purpose shaped by the Law of Cause and Effect. "Intent" is not as simple as teleological purpose. "Intent" goes to the very heart of consciousness -- what it means to exist as a living consciousness who is separate from (though connected to) other living consciousnesses. Intent can be thought of as a cohesive set of interconnected choices -- a series of small choices that, when put together, create one big "meta-choice." That "meta-choice" is your intent. At a quantum level, "meta-choices" shape the way in which certain energies can and will flow.  

A: Can you give us an analogy for that?  

J: Sure. I'll use an analogy I've used before -- the sower of seeds. 

A: I think I see where this is headed . . .  

J: In the parable of the sower [Thomas 9; Mark 4], the person -- the soul -- is the sower of seeds. The seeds represent the person's potential, the person's ability to learn, grow, change, and create. But the sower doesn't create out of thin air. He must plant the seeds -- the seeds of potential -- in the right place if he wants them to grow. His decision on where to sow the seeds is his intent -- his "meta-choice." The meta-choice is what determines which seeds can and will grow. The seeds don't grow equally well in all intents. Where seeds fall on a "ground" or "subfloor" of rock, they fail to root and they produce no harvest. Where seeds fall on patches of thorny weeds, they don't grow and they're eaten by grubs and caterpillars. There's nothing wrong with the seeds themselves. The problem lies in the choice of where to plant them. The problem lies with the intent. 

A: So a narcissist's true intent is like the choice to sow seeds on rocky ground or in thorny patches.  

J: Or in a bed of fire, as the church likes to recommend.

Seeds don’t grow easily on this rocky ground. “Jesus said: Look, there was a man who came out to sow seed. He filled his hand with seed and threw it about. Some fell onto the road, and birds ate it. Some fell onto rocks and could not root and produced no grain. Some fell into patches of thorny weeds that kept it from growing, and grubs ate it. Some seed fell upon good soil and grew and produced good grain. It was 60 units per measure and 120 units per measure (Gospel of Thomas 9).” Photo credit JAT 2023.