JR40: Recap: Some Reflections From the Author

Today I'm going to post a few of my own thoughts as a sort of recap. I think it's important for people to stop once in a while and take a deep breath and reflect on all the activity of the previous few weeks -- whatever the activity might be.  

The path of knowing and loving God is filled with unexpected pathways, bridges of hope, and places of deep and abiding peace. Photo credit JAT.

If you're new to this site, and you haven't started reading at the beginning, you're probably wondering what the heck I'm trying to do here. Am I pretending to write a dialogue with Jesus in the way Plato once pretended to write dialogues with dead people? Or in the way Neale Donald Walsch (he of "Conversations with God" fame) has been pretending to write dialogues with God?

No, actually. I'm exactly who I claim to be. I'm a mother and I'm a science-loving quasi-Christian cataphatic mystic who talks every day to one particular angel who happens to have acquired a lot of fame.  

The dialogues I write are exactly what I claim the dialogues are -- dialogues with Jesus. You can accept that or not as you wish. It makes no difference to me whether or not you believe me. I'm not trying to convert you. I'm not asking you for money. I'm not asking you to put me on a pedestal and admire me. Heck, if I wanted those things, I'd have posted my name long ago and built up a clever marketing campaign (as many other spiritual gurus have done). I'm trying to share some insights that have been important to me on my journey, insights that may prove helpful to you, too. That's my goal. That's my intent. If it feels right to you, great. If not, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over your rejection. I know who I am and I won't apologize for it. 

I wrote my first 49 posts on Concinnate Christianity without bringing Jesus overtly onto the pages. But Jesus helped me write every one of those posts, just as he's helping me with this one, even though he's not speaking out loud today. Maybe you think it's all baloney, that if I'm not inventing the dialogues or inventing my belief in Jesus' presence, then there must be something seriously wrong with me. Maybe a split personality or something. If you're determined to put me in this category, there's nothing I can do to stop you. I know from harsh experience that all the proof in the world won't stop a person from believing what he or she is determined to believe. You've gotta do what you've gotta do, and I've gotta do what I've gotta do. However, you should know that I'm not the tiniest bit afraid of being assessed by an objective third-party psychiatrist in a normal clinical setting. I have great respect for the field of psychiatry. In fact, I probably have more in common with a psychiatrist of faith (by that I mean a psychiatrist who is also a person of faith) than with any other sort of specialist. (As you may have noticed, I have little regard for most theologians.)  

I decided to make this blog different. I wanted people to have the chance to get to know Jesus better as a person, and the only way to do that is to give Jesus a chance to speak in his own voice. Hence the dialogue format. These dialogues aren't pre-written. I write spontaneously on the date that actually appears at the top of each post. I usually write in the mornings because I happen to be a morning person. I also write in the mornings because I often start work around noon. Today I'm scheduled to start work at 10:00 a.m., though, so I have to type quickly because I need to get ready for work. As usual, I'll probably leave behind a few typos. I'll catch them sometime. Maybe later today, maybe not for a few weeks. I'm still finding typos on the Concinnate Christianity site.  

Meanwhile, I'm struggling to find the best way to introduce my thoughts on the spiritual journey on the Blonde Mystic site. It's no easy task to find the right pedagogical approach to a field of inquiry that has barely been touched by anyone because of its complexity. The journey of the soul can't be reduced to simplistic models -- which may be the only point I've managed to communicate effectively so far on the Blonde Mystic site. 

I didn't set out to be a channeller of the man who once lived as Jesus, and when I finally realized who it was that I was actually talking to I was some pissed. I was pissed because I understood even then (in 2001) the implications of trying to tell other people I can talk to Jesus. Yeah, right. Like, how bizarre is that? All I can tell you is that he really means it and I really mean it and hopefully you can feel the truth of his -- our -- words in our posts. 

I also hope you can feel how important it is for me to stay within the bounds of respectable science. Have you noticed I never prophesy? I don't prophesy because I think it's wrong to invent claims about what will happen. How can I know what will happen? I can make guesses, like everybody else, about what might happen. That's why I like science-fiction (as opposed to sci-fi, which I don't much care for, except for Star Wars). But science fiction is story telling. It's not prophecy (well, not intentionally, anyway). I don't waste my time trying to predict things. I have enough on my plate just trying to figure out the present. Of course, in order to understand the present, I need to have a grasp on the past, too. This is why I do so much historical research.  

The soul I know as Jesus is a real person, a real person with his own personality and his own talents and his own interests. He's not a clay figure who can be moulded and shaped into anything you want him to be. It's not right to treat anyone that way, including Jesus. He's his own person, his own self. 

I can tell you right now what you would "see" if he were here on Planet Earth right now in his own body (which he's not). You'd see a tall, dark-haired man with a tan complexion and dark brown eyes. You'd see a man who smokes (yes, I know what I'm saying here about the smoking thing -- and no, I don't smoke, and never have, except for two or three packs when I was 18). You'd see a man who loves vehicles -- sports cars, bikes, planes. You'd see a man who loves hard rock and plays guitar, piano, drums. But you'd also see a polymath -- a particularly gifted all-round scholar who can effortlessly handle science, philosophy, history, writing, music, and math. You'd see a man fascinated by medical science. You'd see a man who wants to be in the heart of the action where people need a lot of help. I could easily see him as a surgeon in a war zone. He's just that kind of guy -- brilliant but also a bit wild and reckless. 

Oh, and he swears a lot.  

This is who Jesus is. This is who he has always been as a soul and angel. It's who he will always be. He's gritty and funny. He's very shy, but he also has a "showy" streak in him, and once you get him going, you can't get him away from the microphone. He has a huge hole in his heart from the time when his human daughter died in Nazareth. (This sort of grief never goes away, even for angels.) He has terrific fashion sense. He sings like Josh Groban. He's left handed. He prefers tea over coffee.  

These things are hardwired into his soul. I've spent so much time with him that I can "feel" these things about him. Sure, I've translated them into "humanese" (not really a word, but I hope you get the idea). But everyone's soul personality gets translated into "humanese" when they choose to incarnate on Planet Earth, and it's really not that hard to see a person's true soul personality once you understand that God's children are always God's children -- no matter where they happen to be living in the space-time continuum.  

Gotta go. Time to go to work. Catch you later. Best wishes to you all. 

Love Jen

JR35: Father of Lights, Mother of Breath

A: Saying 56 of the Gospel of Thomas is somewhat puzzling. Stevan Davies translates it as "Jesus said: Whoever has known the world has found a corpse; whoever has found that corpse, the world is not worthy of him." Davies suggests that this saying relates to the two Creation stories in Genesis. He says, "it seems that the animating principle of the world is the Kingdom within it that remains undiscovered by most people. They do not realize that for them the world is a corpse; when they discover that it is, they simultaneously discover the Kingdom that can animate it" (page 61). Davies's interpretation doesn't feel right to me. What were you trying to get at here?

“Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the Word of Truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures” (James 1:17-18). Photo credit JAT 2014.

 
J: Davies's thesis that the Kingdom is an animating principle within a person and within the world outside each person is central to his interpretations of the Thomasine sayings. He's entitled to his own theories, but I don't have to agree with them.

A: So you don't agree.

J: No. Davies's interpretation -- for all that he tries to cast it in the light of Wisdom teachings instead of Gnostic teachings -- is still Gnostic. In other words, it's an occult interpretation. Occult interpretations of the world rely heavily on dualistic thinking -- everything is reduced to pairs of opposites such as "good versus evil" or "light versus darkness."

A: "Alive versus dead."

J: Yes. As soon as a person starts talking about "dead things" being animated -- literally, being brought to life -- by outside forces, then you're moving in the direction of dualistic, occult thought. What scholars call Christian Gnosticisms are really just a form of immaturity. Emotional and intellectual immaturity. Nothing in Creation can be reduced to the kind of simplistic "either-or" religious formula that's being offered in Davies's interpretation. Life just isn't like that.

A: So you don't agree that "alive versus dead" is a legitimate pair, a legitimate starting point for discussion about the nature of life?

J: You have to understand the religious context in which I lived. People had some very strange ideas about birth, life, illness, and death -- everyone did, regardless of their religion. Jews were no different. We had tons of restrictions and limitations and taboos around natural life processes. Especially around death. Taboos around some other things had loosened up when Jewish lands fell under the sway of Hellenistic thought and then Roman thought. But the taboos around death hadn't diminished. People were very frightened of dead bodies. Only certain people were allowed to touch them. No one could be buried inside the city walls. The list went on and on.

A: That doesn't sound much different from today.

J: One of religion's most important jobs is to help people deal in mature and compassionate ways with death. Few religions manage to accomplish this task with any grace or decorum. One of the few modern religions that brings death into the community in a living, natural way is Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity could learn a thing or two from Judaism on this score. However, the approach to death seen in today's synagogue was not the approach to death I grew up with. Rabbinic Judaism didn't exist in the first half of the 1st century CE. Judaism was a mess. We had so many competing philosophies and so many competing rituals that regular people were hopelessly confused.

A: Dare I say that you added to that confusion?

J: You can say that. It's true. But Judaism had some good things going for it. Even though I had studied the works of Hellenistic philosophers, looking for nuggets of spiritual wisdom, I came back in the end to the best that Judaism had to offer. In my view, the best ideas of Judaism topped everything the other religions were offering.

A: Can you give some examples?

J: The most obvious one is the image of God in the Hebrew texts. There was the strange idea in Judaism -- uncommon, though not unprecedented in the history of religion -- that there was really just one God, not a whole pantheon of gods. Of course, I didn't agree with the Platonic idea that God was a single undifferentiated "He." This idea had slowly made its way into Jewish thought, and by the 1st century CE it was widely accepted by many Jews. But not all Jews saw God as 100% male. A thinking person couldn't make sense of the natural world if it was seen solely as a "male domain." There had to be a feminine principle in there somewhere -- a feminine principle that was equal to the male principle and in full partnership with the male principle. My personal experiences as a mystic clinched that theory beyond all doubt. Once I had seen and felt the reality of God the Mother and God the Father in my own heart, I had no doubt about who God really is. God is Father and Mother together -- Abba and Ruah. Father of Lights, Mother of Breath. That's what I called them.

A: You refer to the Father of Lights in the Letter of James (James 1:17-18). You also say there that the Father of Lights gave birth to us "by the word of truth." What did you mean by this?

J: "The word of truth" -- logo aletheias in the Greek, which is not the same as Sophia (Wisdom) -- is a name I sometimes used for God the Mother. I was trying to make it clear that God the Father doesn't give birth to us by himself. It isn't a weird form of parthenogenesis (virgin birth). It's the most natural form of creation imaginable.

A: Two partners coming together in light and in truth and fulfilling our creation because they want to.

J: This image of God was considered heretical to both pious Jews and pious Gentiles. There were countless images of the Divine in many different religions. The only image of the Divine that wasn't being preached was the one I was preaching -- the God Who Is Two. One God, many children. One God, many souls. One God, many Kingdoms. This image of God as God really is did have -- and still has -- the power to free so many people from the suffering caused by prejudice and hierarchy and male dominance! This image has the power to open up the gates of meaningful relationship with God. Everything you see in the world around you makes so much more sense when you allow yourself to make room for the "crazy, heretical notion" that God is Two -- not One, and not Three. All the most meaningful experiences of life as a human -- the experiences of love, of redemption, of healing, of trust -- they all rely on relationship. On two people -- at a minimum -- coming together in mutual aid and comfort. As the song says, "one is the loneliest number". On the other hand, two is the number of change, growth, creation, balance, and divine love. The world of science and nature constantly reinforces this one simple message: it's all about Two, not One.

A: It seems very strange to me that when an individual adamantly holds to the idea that God is One, his or her thinking becomes less holistic and more dualistic -- more based on black-and-white pairs of opposites. When pious religious followers commit themselves wholly to the idea that God is One, it's like a cartoon thought bubble pops up and fills itself up with all sorts of nasty, judgmental words. Words so nasty they could singe the hair off your head. You wouldn't think the idea of God-as-One could lead to so much hatred and prejudice and racial discrimination. But we have plenty of history to prove it. I've been watching the Kennedy mini-series on the History Channel, and of course they examine the racial rioting in the U.S. South in the early 1960's. I simply can't understand or relate to that kind of vicious hatred.

J: Well, we had plenty of that kind of vicious hatred in my time. Jews against other Jews. Rich against poor. Chosen people against damned people. Blah, blah, blah. No end to the bigotry. No end to the narcissism.

A: I see you're equating bigotry with narcissism.

J: Sure. Bigotry can only grow in a garden that's growing the weeds of narcissism and bullying. Narcissism is a psychologically dysfunctional state where an individual's brain becomes addictively dependent on the myth that he or she is "special," "better than others," and entitled to better treatment than other people. Like any addict, the status addict has to receive regular fixes. To maintain a stance of bigotry towards another person on the basis of skin colour is simply proof of addiction -- addiction to status. The choice to hate somebody on the basis of race or skin colour has the same biological effect on the brain as an addiction to cocaine. Bigotry is a form of "using." It has no place in the life of a person of faith.

A: Bigotry is another form of dualistic thinking -- "us versus them."

J: It's also a clear indication of immaturity in an individual. A mature individual is able to process ambiguity, change, complexity, and "shades of grey." A mature individual is capable -- even as a frail human being -- of perceiving and appreciating the vast scope of Creation and the awe-inspiring, humbling interconnections that exist among all forms of life, both here and elsewhere in Creation. A mature individual doesn't ask "what God can do for you," but instead asks "what you can do for God."

A: That statement would be considered blasphemous by the "piety and pity" crew that insists we're all full of sin and unworthy before God.

J: Well, I rejected the "piety and pity" parade, as you can tell from everything I've been trying to say on this site.

A: I'll just call you the "trust and twofulness" guy instead.