JR46: First Step in Healing the Church: Restore the Soul

“Jesus said: If your leaders say to you ‘Look! The Kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you. When you understand yourselves you will be understood. And you will realize that you are Children of the living Father. If you do not know yourselves, then you exist in poverty and you are that poverty” (Gospel of Thomas 3a and 3b). Photo credit JAT.

A: Jesus, what would you say to those who are asking how we can heal the church of the third millennium?

J: That's an easy one. First you have to rescue the soul. Not save it. Rescue it. Restore it to the place of sanity it deserves. Give it some credit. Give it some trust. Be kind to it. Rescue it the way you'd rescue a dog who's been shut out of the house without food or water. Bring it in from the cold.

A: Or in from the fiery pits of hell.

J: There's a trend at the moment among Progressive Christians who want to try to rescue me. They want to rescue me from the clutches of the evangelical, charismatic, and fundamentalist Christians. While I appreciate the effort, the Progressive movement won't solve anything by trying to rescue me. I'm not the problem. And I'm not the solution.

A: In the Christology course I took, we studied a book by Wayne Meeks called Christ Is the Question (Louisville KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). At the beginning of the book, Meeks identifies this issue. He says, "As a brand of shampoo promises the answer to frizzy hair, a detergent brand the answer to unbright laundry, a new model car the answer to loneliness and (by innuendo) sexual longing, so Jesus is the answer to -- what? Whatever you wish. Indeed [mainly in the context of American Protestantism] Jesus has become whatever you wish, an all-purpose brand, the answer to all needs, desires, fantasies, and speculations" (page 2).

J: It's true. But it's not really a new development in Christianity. It's exactly the outcome the apostle Paul desired. From the beginning, Paul's intention was to convert me -- a real flesh and blood person -- into the new face of the well-known Saviour brand. Sort of like redoing the label on a familiar brand of soap. You want your target audience to believe your "new and improved" brand of soap can clean away absolutely anything. You know you're lying, but you hope your audience won't catch on -- at least not until you have their money in your pocket.

A: Old lies beget new lies.

J: There's nothing to stop people from taking Paul's imaginary Saviour figure and adding their own imagination to the story. Who's to say they're wrong? It happens all the time in story-telling traditions. Somebody comes up with a captivating (but purely fictional) hero or heroine. The character and the plot catch on. Other people start dreaming up their own chapters in the hero's saga. Some of these catch on, too, and enter the myth. King Arthur is a good example of this. People are still writing their own versions of this story. Five hundred years from now the fanzine additions to favourite comic book heroes will blur together and create one giant new myth about Superman. Traditions evolve. Stories evolve. But story-telling traditions aren't selling fact. They're selling story. Fantasy. Speculation.

A: You're saying that there's too much story in Christianity and not enough fact. 

J: Yes. There's too much story. On the other hand, there's not nearly enough mystery. When I say mystery, I mean there's not enough room for individuals to have a transformative experience of redemption. Redemption and divine love and divine forgiveness are emotional experiences that lie well outside the boundaries of pure logic. Words like "wonder" and "gratitude" and "humbleness" spring to mind. But redemption doesn't just change your thinking. It changes everything -- everything in your whole being. It changes the way your physical body works. It changes the way you see colours. It changes the way you see patterns. It changes the way you learn. It changes the way you remember. The way you smell things. The way you feel rain on your skin. The way you eat your food. The way you sleep. The way you dream at night. The way you dream while you're awake. It changes absolutely everything about your relationship with yourself and with all Creation. Where once you crawled and chewed endlessly as a caterpillar, now you fly with beauty and grace as a winged butterfly and sip from the nectar of flowers. It may sound cliched, but it's true. The experience of transformation is that profound. You were "you" when you were a caterpillar, and you're still "you" as a butterfly. But the way in which you relate to the world has been completely altered. Your whole life is completely changed. The change is so sweet. So kind. So mysterious. It takes your breath away.

A (nodding): Even while you're still living here as a somewhat confused and baffled human being. You don't have to die to feel the mystery. You have to live.

J: The process of redemption -- the experience of mystery -- begins for a human being with the soul. The soul is not fictional. The soul is real. The soul -- the true core self of each consciousness within Creation -- is your laughter. Your empathy. Your conscience. Your curiosity. Your sense of wonder. In other words, all the least explainable, most mysterious parts of being human.

The soul is not one substance, but many substances -- many substances of a quantum nature. Its complexity and sophistication at a quantum level lie outside the bounds of current scientific investigation. But this has no bearing one way or the other on the soul's scientific reality. Scientific researchers have failed to detect many things in nature: the soul is just one of many things on a long list of "undiscovered countries."

A: How would a renewed understanding of the soul help heal the church today?

J: At the moment the Progressive movement has concluded -- based on erroneous starting assumptions -- that the past errors of the church include a belief in the eternal soul, a belief in miracles, and (for some) a belief that a guy named Jesus ever existed. They assume that if these "errors" are swept out of the church, and replaced with teachings based on pure logic and pure praxis, or, on the other end of the scale, replaced with teachings based on pure symbolism and hidden truth, then the church can be restored to a state of health and balance. This is not so.

A: They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

J: Yes. They've failed to realize that the problem with the church is that church leaders long ago put a lien on people's souls, as you and I discussed last time.

A: I was pretty indignant, wasn't I?

J: For good reason. The problem for Christianity is not a belief in the existence of the soul. The problem for Christianity (or rather, one of the problems) is the body of lies being taught about the soul. Over the centuries, Christian orthodoxy has done everything in its power to preserve the lien on the soul so it can preserve its power. The lien has to go. Church leaders are going to have to stand up and be honest about the fact that their teachings on the soul have damaged people's confidence and trust in God. They need to start from square one on the question of the soul -- no resorting to "tradition," no rooting around in the writings of early Church Fathers for justification. This will be a terrifying prospect for most theologians. But it must be done. The answers to their questions are already there -- not in the pages of the Bible, and not in the pages of Plato and Aristotle and Augustine and Aquinas and Wesley, but in the pages of God's scientific reality. Theological inquiry must stop clinging to tradition. You're in the third millennium now. Start acting like it.

JR38: The Peace Sequence

The Peace Sequence: First Education, Second Mentorship, Third Personal Responsibility, and finally Peace. Like shovelling after a heavy snowfall, it’s hard work and you can only take it one shovelful at a time. But in the end, the pathway is cleared, and you can move forward. Photo credit JAT 2015.

A: Back in August 2005, before I'd set foot in graduate school, or even considered doing so, you wrote a piece about "the peace sequence." At the time, you flagged what John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan Reed had written at the beginning of their book In Search of Paul: How Jesus's Apostle Opposed Rome's Empire with God's Kingdom (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004). Crossan and Reed wrote this:

"Paul's essential challenge is how to embody communally that radical vision of a new creation in a way far beyond even our present best hopes for freedom, democracy, and human rights. The Roman Empire was based on the common principle of peace through victory or, more fully, on a faith in the sequence of piety, war, victory, and peace. Paul was a Jewish visionary following in Jesus' footsteps, and they both claimed that the Kingdom of God was already present and operative in this world. He opposed the mantras of Roman normalcy with a vision of peace through justice or, more fully, with a faith in the sequence of covenant, nonviolence, justice, and peace. A subtext of In Search of Paul is, therefore: To what extent can America be Christian? (page xi)"

I can still remember your reaction when I read this paragraph back in 2005. At the top of the page, I wrote down your response: "Jesus: peace through personal responsibility in the sequence of education, mentorship, personal responsibility, then peace." It's taken me years of research and ongoing discussion with you to more fully understand what you meant that day.

J: As I said then, I don't disagree with Crossan and Reed's formulation of Paul's peace sequence. Paul did, in fact, teach his followers to reject the Roman ideal of peace through victory -- the Pax Romana -- and to choose peace through divine justice or justification. But this isn't what I taught. So they're wrong to state that Paul was following in my footsteps. Paul wasn't following me or my teachings. If anything, he was going along with a straw broom trying to erase all evidence of my footsteps.

A: Last week on the Vision Channel, I watched an episode of The Naked Archaeologist where Simcha Jacobovcivi looked at the idea that Paul was actually an agent of the Romans. Biblical scholar Robert Eisenman has been saying this for years -- and in fact Eisenman was interviewed by Simcha on last week's episode. If Paul actually was an agent of the Romans, why would he have taught his followers to reject the Roman version of the peace sequence and accept his own Christ-based peace sequence? It doesn't make any sense.

J: It doesn't make sense if you view Paul as being an agent of the emperor in Rome. However, it makes a ton of sense of you view Paul as being an agent of other powerful Roman figures -- members of the Roman elite who wanted to seize power for themselves. It would have been in their best interests to set up a religion to compete head-on with the Roman Emperor Cult.

A: Oh. Why haven't I read that anywhere else?

J: Because it sounds like a low-down, dirty rotten, scandalous political ploy. A cold, calculating, ruthless attempt by one party to seize power from another party. With Paul as the chief spin doctor for the down-and-out party. Who wants to say that out loud?

A: Maybe the producers and writers of the Rome TV series? That series certainly pulled back the curtain on the behaviour of the Roman aristocracy -- the things they did to try to get power.

J: The truth about Paul isn't pretty. He was no saint. On the other hand, he believed in what he was doing. He believed he was doing the right thing. He felt totally justified in trying to convert the Diaspora Jews and the Gentile God-Fearers to "the cause."

A: And what cause was that?

J: Deposing the evil, corrupt Julio-Claudian dynasty and restoring the One True Religion and the One True Emperor.

A: You've got to be kidding.

J: Nope. I'm not kidding. There was a huge group of disaffected Romans still living in Alexandria, Egypt, and they believed that their divine right to rule over all lands had been usurped from them by the upstart Julius Caesar and his family. They were convinced that Alexandria, not Rome, was meant to be the centre of the world, and that one of their own bloodline was destined to be Emperor. When Augustus manoeuvred to have Rome declared a Principate -- until then it was officially a Republic -- the Alexandrians went beserk. The situation was not improved by the institution of the Emperor Cult -- meaning worship of the man who sat on the throne in Rome. The Alexandrians believed this was sacrilege. Furthermore, the Emperor Cult was undermining the Alexandrians' ongoing efforts to gain popular support for a shift in power from the West to the East. They knew they needed a strong religious structure in place before they could gain that popular support.

A: So they needed a new religion -- one tailored to their needs.

J: Some of the greatest religio-political thinkers that ever lived found their way to Alexandria.

A: Because the Great Library was there?

J: In part. But powerful mystery cults had their roots there, too. The importance of mystery cults in the history of ancient politics can't be overstated. Official rulers couldn't rule without the support of the local religious priests -- a reality that still exists in many parts of the world today.

A: So Paul's Christ-Saviour religion was invented as a way to secure a widespread religious power base for the Alexandrian group. By the way, did this group have a name?

J: Not one you'd recognize today. For the purposes of our discussion, we'll call them Seekers of the Rock. There's a reason for this name -- a reason based on their occult beliefs.

A: Okay. Seekers of the Rock. Why did this group conscript Paul to do its work?

J: Paul was an angry man -- a man looking for a way to undermine my teachings. You could say that Paul and the Seekers had many interests in common. Paul had no love of the Emperor Cult, and he had no love of me. The Seekers of the Rock offered him a deal he couldn't refuse. Over a number of years he developed a religious formula he thought would work in the new religious climate of the Empire. Then he went on the road to preach it and gauge the response. He had to fine-tune it as he went along. This is why you see changes in his theological claims over the course of his "ministry."

A: Well, whatever he did, it turned out to be spectacularly successful.

J: He didn't do it by himself. The Seekers were powerful and wealthy, and they did everything they could to back him up. They footed the bill for his "Amazing Race" around the Eastern Mediterranean, kept him in hiding when the Romans were getting too close, arranged to have his scrolls copied and distributed. It was very much a team effort.

A: Sounds a lot like the federal election we just had here in Canada.

J: It's a good analogy. Except they weren't trying to win an election -- they were trying to establish a theocracy with their own man as divinely-appointed emperor.

A: Who was "their man"? Was it Paul himself?

J: No. Paul's job was to lay the theological groundwork for the coming "return of the king." The original plan was to build on Jewish apocalyptic and prophetic texts so people would be expecting the imminent return of the Saviour. The Saviour was given a new and distinctive name -- Jesus Christ, Jesus the Anointed One. Once enough people were "on board" with the idea of the return of the Saviour, and once the necessary political and military and economic measures were in place, the idea was to "reveal" the newly returned divine Saviour. They planned to secretly train a prince from their own bloodline and present him publicly as Jesus-Christ-returned-in-the-flesh when the time was right. They would claim he was the divine son of God and therefore the rightful claimant to the religious and political power of Rome.  This is why they needed a religious power base in Rome. The Seekers believed that pious Christians would roll out the welcome mat for the man they claimed was the Messiah. All they needed was enough time, patience, and money to bring their plan to fruition.

A: Obviously it didn't work out the way they planned. What happened?

J: God made sure that an obscure scholar in Judea got his hands on Paul's key doctrinal statement: the letter now called First Corinthians.

A: Your great-nephew. The man we know as Mark.

J: Mark saw right away what they were doing. And he answered it word for word with his own non-covenantal, non-pious testament to the power of education, mentorship, and personal responsibility in achieving peace and relationship with God.

A: I love a good conspiracy theory!

JR28: Paul's Easy Salvation

A: You've said that Paul's Temple teachings were very different from your own Kingdom teachings -- so much so that when your great-nephew "Mark" read what Paul had written in the letter called First Corinthians, he blew a gasket and started work on his own version of your teachings. Why was Mark so upset about Paul's Temple teachings?  

J: Mark knew that one of my basic teachings had been about the Jerusalem Temple and the stranglehold the Temple and its priests exerted on regular Jewish people. It was much the same equation as Martin Luther faced when he decided to go public with his rejection of Papal and Vatican corruption in the early 1500's. Luther didn't reject the idea of faith in God -- far from it. But he rejected a number of official claims made by the Church. He thought the Church was no longer representing the ideals of true Christian faith. So he protested. 

A: This was part of the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.  

J: Yes. But Luther was protesting from within the Church, not from outside it. He was an Augustinian monk and priest, highly educated and highly devout. He held a doctorate in theology. So he wasn't easily dissuaded from the idea -- once he saw it -- that the Church wasn't "practising what it preached." I had the same problem with the Jerusalem Temple and the priestly hierarchy in my time. Once I saw the problem, I wasn't easily dissuaded. Much to the chagrin of my aristocratic family. 

A: You've said your mother was descended from the priestly bloodline. That must have given your family a lot of status, a lot of authority. 

J: My family was somewhat on the fringes of the power and authority that priestly families were entitled to. This was partly due to the fact that my mother's line wasn't descended from the "first son of the first son." We were related to the "junior sons," so to speak -- pretty good as far as pedigrees go, but not "the best of the best." Another factor was our geographical location. I wasn't born and raised in Jerusalem -- one of the hotbeds of Jewish political intrigue. I was born and raised in the city of Philadelphia, on the other side of the River Jordan. It was a Hellenized city, but also quite Jewish in its cultural norms, so I was raised with a strange mix of values and religious teachings. That's what allowed me, when I reached adulthood, to be more objective about trends in Jewish thought -- by that I mean the blend of religious, political, cultural, and social ideas that were intertwined in people's hearts and minds. I was far enough away from the Temple -- physically and geographically -- to be sceptical about the grandiose claims being made by the Temple priests.  

A: In the Gospel of Mark, it's quite apparent what the author thinks of the Temple. Mark shows you visiting all sorts of Jewish and Gentile locations to teach and heal, but the one place you don't visit till the end is Jerusalem. Things start to go badly for you as soon as you get to David's city. This is a strange claim to make if you're trying to promote the idea that Jesus is the prophesied Saviour of the Jewish people.  

J: Well, my great-nephew did think I was an important teacher, a rabbi who could help the Jewish people become free from oppression, but his understanding of my role was not the traditional Jewish understanding of who -- or what -- the Messiah would be. Mark was a very spiritual fellow -- a free thinking Jewish scholar who made his own observations and his own decisions. He got a little carried away, I think, with the idea that I was an important teacher, but on the whole he embraced my ideas about the Kingdom and did his best to live them. 

A: Mark wrote his gospel before the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. 

“Jesus said: Grapes are not harvested from thornbushes, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they yield no fruit. A good person brings forth good from his treasury; a bad person brings forth evil things from his mind’s corrupt treasury, and he speaks evil things. For out of the excesses of his mind he brings forth evil things” (Gospel of Thomas 45 a-b). The photo shows a marble Mithraic relief, (restored), from Rome 100-200 CE on display at the Royal Ontario Museum. The Mithraic Mysteries, in so far as we know what they entailed, showed uncanny similarities to the teachings of Paul. The teachings of Jesus, meanwhile, explicitly rejected the occult practices and secret rituals of mystery cults. Photo credit JAT 2017.

J: Yes. And this is an important detail to bear in mind. Paul and Mark both wrote their comments about the Temple before the Temple was physically destroyed. This fact is important to bear in mind, especially when you're trying to understand what Mark is saying. Mark was seriously -- and I mean seriously -- pissed off about Paul's "moveable Temple." For Mark, as for me, the only way to free the Jewish people to know God and be in full relationship with God was for us to confront the harm and the hypocrisy of the Jewish Temple -- a huge, bloated, phenomenally expensive physical structure that had robbed people of their livelihood through high taxes and ongoing dues, payments, sacrifices, and obligatory pilgrimages. Herod the Great spent a fortune -- a literal fortune -- on his building projects. His children continued his habit of profligate spending on status symbols to impress the rest of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the widows and orphans and foreigners we were supposed to look after -- according to Exodus -- were going hungry and selling themselves into slavery because of their poverty. This was unacceptable to me and to many others. I certainly wasn't alone in being outraged at the unfairness, the hypocrisy, the status addiction, and the corruption. 

A: Chapter 13 of Mark has long puzzled Christian scholars. It's viewed by reputable scholars such as Bart Ehrman as a "little apocalypse" because it seems to prophesy the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. They use this chapter as part of their proof that you yourself claimed to be an apocalyptic prophet. How do you respond to that?  

J: Without wishing to be harsh, I'd say these biblical scholars need to refresh their memory on what the earlier Jewish prophetic books and Jewish apocalypses actually said about the role of the Temple in the prophesied End Times. It's clear that highly revered earlier writers such as First Isaiah and Second Isaiah and Zechariah believed the physical Temple on Mount Zion (i.e. Jerusalem) would be absolutely central to the ideal future restoration of Judah in the End Times. Yet Mark uses imagery from apocalyptic texts like Daniel to turn these predictions on their head. Mark 13 shouldn't be called the "little apocalypse": it should be called the "anti-apocalypse" because of the way it intentionally subverts and repudiates the prophecies of Zechariah. Mark may be attacking Paul's theology throughout his own gospel, but he uses well-known Hebrew prophecies to do it. Mark's own Jewish audience would have understood these references. They would have understood that Mark was openly attacking traditional Jewish teachings about the future End Times when God would one day return and "fix everything."  

A: Traditional teachings that Paul continued to endorse in his letters (1 Corinthians 15).  

J: Yes. Paul enthusiastically taught his followers about the coming End Times -- a traditional Jewish teaching in itself -- and on top of that he added a wonderful new theological guarantee. He promised people that if they gave themselves over fully to a belief in Christ, then God's Spirit would be able to live inside of them in the "Temple" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20). Paul took the sacredness of the Jerusalem Temple and made it "moveable," an inner sanctuary of purity for the Spirit, just as the Essenes had already done in their Charter (1QS 3 and 1QS 8). He didn't try to undermine the importance and authority of the Jerusalem Temple. He actually added to it (as the Essenes had done) by elevating it to an inner mystical state that could only be known to true believers who followed Paul's teachings. This is a simplified version of Paul's Temple theology, but you get the picture. He's offering his followers the ultimate in "easy salvation." "You no longer have to go to the Temple; the Temple will come to you." 

A: And once you have the Temple, you can access all those spiritual goodies that Paul promises (1 Corinthians Chapters 2, 12, and 14).  

J: It's a theology that's very appealing to people who want all the benefits without doing the hard work.  

A: I've said it before and I'll say it again -- your teachings are much harder to stick to than Paul's are. It's impossible to follow your recommendations for connection with God without making spiritual commitment a regular part of everyday life. Once a week on Sundays -- or twice a year at Christmas and Easter -- won't do it. You ask a lot of regular people.  

J: Only because I have faith in you. Only because I have faith.

JR7: John the Baptist and Jesus

A: Tell me more about John. Why do you say that John the Baptist and John the Evangelist are one and the same person? Is there any proof for that in the Bible?  

Theologians and biblical researchers have tended to overlook the significance of this passage from Mark 3: 13 – 19, in which Jesus names the twelve apostles: “. . .James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder)”. The Gospel writer Mark isn’t telling his audience that James and John were powerful preachers (as Christian writers would like to believe); Mark is telling his audience that James and John were claiming for themselves a powerful pedigree. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the charter for the Yahad is a reference to two prophesied Messiahs — a priestly Messiah and a Messiah of Israel (a royal commander for the armies) — who will serve together in the Last Days at the Messianic Banquet. Once it’s clear that the Yahad was waiting for a pair of Messiahs rather than a single Messiah, the reference in Mark to the Sons of Thunder takes on much greater significance. Mark is saying that James and John were claiming divine heritage, just like the long parade of gentile heroes who insisted they were the sons of Zeus, Jupiter, and other Thunder Gods. (And I don’t think Mark thought much of this particular claim.) Shown here is the mosaic above the entrance to the Chapel of St. John and the Grotto of the Revelation on the island of Patmos. Photo credit JAT 2001.

J: You have to know what to look for. Mark's account of John's beheading is much more than it seems. But Mark is like that throughout his gospel. You really have to know your sources -- important early texts -- to understand Mark. Mark was highly intelligent and very well read. He riffed off well known symbolism and motifs to tell his tale of intrigue. And intrigue it was.  

A: The Gospel of John mentions John the Baptist's early ministry several times, but then he sort of fades out of the picture. The Fourth Gospel doesn't say what happened to the Baptist.  

J: That's because John the Baptist was still alive and still teaching long after I died. A: Tell me about him as a person.  

J: How much time do you have?  

A: The Gospel of John is considered by many Christians to be the clearest expression, the clearest depiction, of the ministry and divinity of Jesus. Theologians love John's "high Christology." Many people feel that when they're listening to the voice of John, they're listening to divine truth. The prologue -- John 1:1-18 -- is poetic, elegant, mystical. It helps people feel they're getting closer to God.  

J: John was a gifted communicator, a skilled rhetorician and poet. If he hadn't been, I wouldn't have been drawn into his movement in the beginning. He was truly charismatic when he spoke. His writings definitely reflect that. Even his last writing -- the book of Revelation. Even when he was profoundly psychotic, as he was in the later years of his life, the poetry and metre of the texts he'd read again and again in his childhood infused all his thinking. In a way you could say that the poetry and metre of those early texts -- the logos -- acted for him to lessen the pain, fear, and confusion that comes with psychosis. The logos was a soothing mantra. Olanzapine in word form, you might say.  

A: Olanzapine being a highly effective atypical anti-psychotic medication.  

J: Yes. Before the advent in recent years of tailored psychiatric medications, those who were suffering from major mental illness -- including the flattened affect and hallucinations that accompany schizophrenia and related forms of psychotic illness -- suffered more than most people can imagine. The suffering is internal but intense. Sometimes it feels to them as if their head is on fire. Or that ants are crawling everywhere inside them. It's a horrible feeling. They have to find relief wherever they can. The majority turn to addictive substances -- substances that trigger the dopamine circuitry in the brain, the pleasure circuitry. Others turn to religion. It's sad to say, but extreme religiosity -- rigid piety, fideism, blind faith, obsessive observance of ritual -- all these careful, minutely observed rituals can bring relief to a suffering individual, depending on what parts of their brain have been ravaged by the effects of the disease process.  

A: When I was working in the mental health field, I saw firsthand that one of the hallmarks of psychotic illness is paranoia. A fear that people are out to "get them." When they're floridly psychotic they're often afraid of their own family members and medical caregivers. They're sure they're being watched, spied on. They're afraid somebody will put poison in their medications. They think they're perfectly sane and everybody else is sick. They have no objective understanding that they're ill when they're ill. 

J: It's the tragedy of the disease. They don't believe they're sick. If they get proper treatment, and become medically stabilized, they begin to develop insight. They begin to understand that the voices they'd been hearing in their heads weren't normal, weren't real. They can begin to trust their family members again. However, it's not possible to persuade a floridly psychotic person to trust you. You can't use logic to get through to them. As those working in the field of psychiatry know, sometimes you just have to lock the person up for a while and treat him against his will. Of course, by the time he's that psychotic, he doesn't really have free will -- not as you and I would understand it. He has lots of thoughts, but they're not balanced, they're not integrated. There's no functioning internal framework to hold his thoughts together, to help him process his thoughts and experiences, and learn from them. It's a big jumble in his head -- very frightening, very confusing. 

A: So if he can find an external framework that makes sense to him . . . 

J: Right. If he can find an external framework such as a strict religious code, then he can lean on that code. He no longer has to make sense of anything on his own. He's off the hook, so to speak. The code tells him what to do and when to do it. This means he doesn't have to decide these things for himself. For a person with schizophrenia (not really one disease, but a related cluster of illnesses) this is a huge relief. Life becomes liveable. Painful but liveable. The tradeoff is the fear. You can't get rid of the fear. You're constantly afraid of attack from "evil forces" such as the devil or demons or vampires or aliens. But at least you can blame the "evil forces" for your fear. You don't have to blame your family. So from that point of view, the strict religious code makes it easier for you to stay with your family and receive the care you need.  

A: Can you explain how all this relates to the man named John?  

J: The man I knew as John -- though his real name wasn't John -- would be diagnosed today under the category of schizophrenia. I first met him when he was about 18, and he already showed signs then of the illness.  

A: As I understand it, that's a common age for a diagnosis of schizophrenia to be made. The signs and symptoms often show up in late adolesence, early adulthood.  

J: Yes, except I didn't have a DSM-IV to refer to, and I didn't recognize his illness at first for what it was. I thought he was an inspired prophet.  

A: What was his background? Where did he come from?  

J: He was an Essene. He was born Essene and raised Essene. He wasn't a raw recruit, as some were -- including myself for a short time.  

A: You were an Essene?  

J: I never officially joined the yahad or "Unity," as they described themselves. In fact, I never made it past the "inquiry phase," as you might call it. I was curious about the yahad. Many Jews were. Like many spiritual inquirers, I thought the Essenes might have the answers I was looking for. So when I heard about the new prophet named John, I went to check him out. It took me a long time to understand that John didn't have the answers. He spoke endlessly and eloquently, but had no answers for me or anyone else. He was far too delusional to help anyone, including himself.  

A: You said his real name wasn't John. What was his real name?  

J: I never knew. Not during my lifetime as Jesus. Readers today may have a hard time understanding what I'm about to say, but when I was growing up, "name magic" was a big deal. If you believed in the mystical "truth" of name magic, you didn't lightly give out your real name. 

A: Why not? J: Your real name was said to be a source of great power. If an evil sorcerer or magician got hold of your name, he could gain power over you. 

A: Interesting. That idea is still floating around. I remember reading Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea novels when I was growing up. The power of true names was central to her stories.  

J: Kabbalah also embraces this idea.  

A: Not a big fan of Kabbalah myself.  

J: Kabbalah owes a lot to the ancient ideas of the Essenes. 

A: What goes around comes around.  

J: There aren't a lot of new mystical ideas under the sun. The human brain, when diseased and dysfunctional, tends to produce certain distinctive patterns of thought, mood, and behaviour -- what physicans call signs and symptoms. When patients start believing -- truly believing -- in occult magic, psychiatrists get worried. It's okay to believe in things you can't see if those things have a scientific origin -- because one day the science will catch up with the theory -- but there's a line. 

A: For instance, it's okay to believe in love, even though we can't see it. Though neuroscientists are now trying to capture it on brain scans.  

J: Right. But mature love makes the world a better place, a more compassionate place, a more logical place. Occult magic doesn't do any of these things. Belief in occult magic makes people less mature, less balanced, more grandiose, more controlling, and therefore less able to bring healing and compassion into the world around them.  

A: Belief in occult magic ties in with the signs and symptoms of major mental illness. 

J: Including psychopathy and severe narcissism.  

A: Only a profoundly narcissistic person would believe that God gives special magical powers to small groups of bullies and tyrants who abuse others in the name of God.  

J: There you go -- your description of John in a nutshell. Raised to believe he was one of the Essene's two prophesied Messiahs, hence profoundly narcissistic and dysfunctional by the time he was 18.  

A: I guess he didn't like you very much, then. 

J: The Essenes were taught to hate the Sons of Darkness and raise up the Sons of Light. As far as he was concerned, I proved myself beyond dispute to be an apostate to the yahad cause and a Son of Darkness worthy of death. By the time I was arrested, John hated my guts.  

A: So much for the theory that John himself was the Beloved Disciple. 

J: Yeah, but I forgave him anyway, even after he tried to kill me.